What do you think of NPR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JChapel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JackQ said:
That’s what I just said. And there may be cases hard to decide. But if a criminal clearly will not be a danger to society if he is incarcerated, then it would be disingenuous to say that a Catholic could legitimately call for his execution. Moreover, it is clearly against Catholic teaching to hold that capital punishment is permissible on any grounds other than that the offender in question presents a danger to human life if he is not executed. It is also against Catholic teaching to say that war can ever be justifiable in circumstances where the criteria for a just war are not met.
Click to expand...
With modern prison techniques, there are VERY FEW criminals who will still be a danger to society if incarcerated. Even if they are a danger to other criminals in prison, we have “ultra max” prisons with solitary. The real reason for killing them rather than that would be that killing them might be cheaper for the state than incarcerating them for life. However, THEN we get into a similar argument as those who would "pull the plug to safe the family/insurance company/the state money. Even those these two people (prisoner, comatose person) are in very different places morally speaking, their situation is eerily similar when looked at through the lens of the seamless garment of pro-life values.
 
I’ve just gotten into NPR: it rocks much harder than their demure voices would imply. They only have a mild liberal bias, though, mostly in the kinds of subjects they focus on. They’re so much more calm and rational than rightish talk radio though… even if I agree with something said (highly unlikely unless it was something like “God exists” or “abortion is bad”) I’m just turned off by the ranting and namecalling.
 
I love NPR.

It’s definitely left of center, wheareas I am mostly not. However, it is intelligent and thought provoking. That’s a lot more than can be said for most commercial radio.

I would rather listen to thought provoking stuff I sometimes disagree with, rather than drively mush even if I agree with the overall conclusion.

And NPR covers a much wider range of topics than most talk radio. For example you’ll get the odd story on finding some rare songbird in the Appalachians, or the politics of funding some new space telescope. Not just the top two or three stories of the day as with most media. Biased or not, I think it helps round out my consciousness of what’s going on in the world.
 
It is true that one will sometimes hear a unique story on NPR that you’d hear nowhere else. However, NPR’s rampant and all-pervasive leftiness has become too much for me to bear. About the only program this hasn’t seem to infiltrate is “Car Talk.” Otherwise, the leftish agenda seems always prominent. Their Saturday humor program, “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me” used to be something I enjoyed, until I realized that whenever a Republican did or said something stupid, it would be relentlessly focused on. But a Democrat? Barely, if ever, a mention.

While they do conduct interviews with those on the conservative side, all too often their questions seem to be of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” flavor. Any news item, however obscure, dealing with homosexuality or “gay rights,” abortion, feminism / gender issues, labor unions, or ethnic issues is trumpeted, given the lead and tremendous airtime. Any possible story that can be viewed through a divisive racial or gender filter is “spun” that way.

Not for nothing was there tremendous turmoil and turnover in the top management levels of NPR some months ago - Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller (no relation) being examples of 2 top executives forced out when their bias could no longer be covered-up.

Meanwhile, whenever someone in Congress questions public funding for NPR, they’re accused of wanting to kill Big Bird and harm children. Yeah - real journalistic integrity and objectivity.
 
I take NPR as an unusually balanced news source. It tries to find intelligent pundits when it carries pundit-on-pundit shows. It also carries stories that do not have the breathless alarm appeal of other news outlets: meaning, there are fewer stories sold with a Chicken Little slant to them. I appreciate that greatly.

As secular perspectives go, which run from far right to far left, I’d say it runs slightly to the left. Having said that, it still only operates from a secular perspective. That is the nature of the country we live in.

It is about as close to center as the news gets, though. You take it with some grain of salt, but beggars can’t be choosers. I listen to Jon Stewart on occasion, too, but that means wading through his bias. It is the price of watching him find the bias of others. I can deal with that.
 
EasterJoy said:
As secular perspectives go, which run from far right to far left, I’d say it runs slightly to the left. Having said that, it still only operates from a secular perspective. That is the nature of the country we live in.

It is about as close to center as the news gets, though. You take it with some grain of salt, but beggars can’t be choosers. I listen to Jon Stewart on occasion, too, but that means wading through his bias. It is the price of watching him find the bias of others. I can deal with that.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I listen to EWTN or read The National Catholic Register to get my Catholic fix. I sort of expect most other media outlets to have an outsider’s take on the Church because… well, they’re not guaranteed and imprimatur’d like a catechetical work. 🙂 You just use your discernment, and avoid anything that’s completely out of line (since that would be unpleasant to expose yourself to uncritically, anyway).
 
LOL. If NPR was balanced, they would be more active in openly discussing the issues that would make many of their listeners appear to be hypocrites, such as taxpayers who cheat on their taxes while voting for more money for social programs, parents who drive their kids to school instead of taking the bus (to save the planet), forcing those who work hard to make more responsible choices to perpetually bail out those who free willingly choose to make less responsible choices, etc, but these truths are too inconvenient for NPR listeners. NPR is fair and balanced? Thanks for the good laugh.
 
ManOnFire said:
LOL. If NPR was balanced, they would be more active in openly discussing the issues that would make many of their listeners appear to be hypocrites, such as taxpayers who cheat on their taxes while voting for more money for social programs, parents who drive their kids to school instead of taking the bus (to save the planet), forcing those who work hard to make more responsible choices to perpetually bail out those who free willingly choose to make less responsible choices, etc, but these truths are too inconvenient for NPR listeners. NPR is fair and balanced? Thanks for the good laugh.
Click to expand...
“…as it is written: "There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.” Rom. 3:10-12

I’m sure there are journalists for NPR that would like you as a news editor. Remember, as they are no doubt reminded by their producers, that we are talking in relative terms concerning not only a secular media, but also a media that survives by keeping itself in the good graces of those who watch it. There are not a lot of alternatives!

If you want to start the “So You Think You’re Righteous, Do You?” Channel, fly right at it! I think you might find that the morally perfect do not waste their time in front of a TV set. If not them as your target audience, then who? The morally masochistic?

Or, as Sideshow Bob put it: *“I’m aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to decry it.” *
 
EasterJoy said:
I take NPR as an unusually balanced news source. It tries to find intelligent pundits when it carries pundit-on-pundit shows. It also carries stories that do not have the breathless alarm appeal of other news outlets: meaning, there are fewer stories sold with a Chicken Little slant to them. I appreciate that greatly.

As secular perspectives go, which run from far right to far left, I’d say it runs slightly to the left. Having said that, it still only operates from a secular perspective. That is the nature of the country we live in.

It is about as close to center as the news gets, though. You take it with some grain of salt, but beggars can’t be choosers. I listen to Jon Stewart on occasion, too, but that means wading through his bias. It is the price of watching him find the bias of others. I can deal with that.
Click to expand...
We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine would be that to say NPR “runs slightly to the left” is like saying the Costa Concordia was “slightly off course.”
 
NPR definitely has some interesting stories sometimes but they are also a very liberal news source. I don’t trust them for most of their news.
 
EasterJoy said:
“…as it is written: "There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.” Rom. 3:10-12

I’m sure there are journalists for NPR that would like you as a news editor. Remember, as they are no doubt reminded by their producers, that we are talking in relative terms concerning not only a secular media, but also a media that survives by keeping itself in the good graces of those who watch it. There are not a lot of alternatives!

If you want to start the “So You Think You’re Righteous, Do You?” Channel, fly right at it! I think you might find that the morally perfect do not waste their time in front of a TV set. If not them as your target audience, then who? The morally masochistic?

Or, as Sideshow Bob put it: *“I’m aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to decry it.” *
Click to expand...
Of course we’re all sinners, but that doesn’t negate the fact that some are free willingly avoiding the TV temptation more than others, and that’s assuming that people actually know to avoid the boob tube in the first place. If you know the TV and liberal media is leading people astray, and that there is not much choice since most of them are spreading the same messages, then why not speak up?

NPR lacks the courage to speak the unbiased truth. The progressive secularists want to promote feelgoodism for the individual Self rather than romantic love for Others. Casual sex, drugs, materialism causes individuals to want feelgoodism for the Self, which induces more individual selfishness, less tolerance for marriage, more birth control, less kids, and the rising numbers of single parents will need govt help and vote that way. Romantic love of Others causes traditional marriage and baby booms. This is why NPR would never want my opinion anywhere near their programming. The liberal media is performing social engineering: they hold down the downtrodden by feeding them more casual sex, drugs, and violence, while continuing to beat the drum of hope and change with a straight face, then burden the responsible taxpayers to pay for those who have been weakened, while grossly profitting from it with money, power, and influence. The worst part is, so many people are not only buying it, but asking for more.
 
ManOnFire said:
…NPR lacks the courage to speak the unbiased truth…
Click to expand...
Do you watch The McLaughlin Hour? mclaughlin.com/bb.htm?i=3320

Buchanan…Trinity girl, nominal Catholic. Look, John, when they antagonize and enrage and get the bishops of the Catholic Church, a lot of whom grew up in Democratic families and are not hostile to Obama, fighting him as though this is a religious war for two weeks, he has been badly damaged, Eleanor. MS. CLIFT: First of all, when those two get out of their pulpits, it’s nice to be able to – (laughter) – (inaudible). I don’t think Secretary Sebelius – MR. LOWRY: I thought my brother Pat was doing quite well. MS. CLIFT: I don’t think – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You’ve been doing all right in your little pulpit over there at the beginning, Eleanor. MS. CLIFT: I don’t think Secretary Sebelius considers herself a nominal Catholic, as you – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah. What was that all about? MS. CLIFT: I think that was an insult. That was a little – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Slash and run? MR. BUCHANAN: I think she’s pro-choice on abortion. How can you be that and be a traditionalist Catholic? MS. CLIFT: She is pro-choice, as a lot of Catholics are. And I would point out that the Institute for Medicine, which ruled that contraceptives are part of preventive health care, is responsible for similar laws in 28 of our states. And many Catholic institutions – MR. LOWRY: Oh, good. So forget about all the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let her finish. MS. CLIFT: The moral teachings of the Catholic Church go back 2,000 years. But on contraceptives – MR. LOWRY: So the Institute for Medicine trumps the Catholic Church when it comes to Catholic institutions? MS. CLIFT: On contraceptives – MR. LOWRY: On the basis of what authority does the Institute of Medicine trump the longstanding moral teachings – MS. CLIFT: Rich – MR. LOWRY: – of the Catholic Church when it comes to what Catholic institutions themselves – MS. CLIFT: Rich, when you – MR. LOWRY: – should do? MS. CLIFT: – put on your collar, you can come back and lecture me. MR. LOWRY: I’m not even Catholic. MS. CLIFT: But that’s enough. MR. LOWRY: I’m not even Catholic. MS. CLIFT: That’s enough. MR. LOWRY: I just believe in religious liberty. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now, wait a second. MS. CLIFT: It is part of preventive care, and – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Now, wait a second. What about the root of the Constitution? Isn’t there freedom of religion? MS. CLIFT: – and women – MR. LOWRY: Yeah, there is. MR. BUCHANAN: He is trampling – his problem is he’s – this time Obama is trampling on God’s turf. Look – MS. CLIFT: Oh, please. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did he get out of that by moving – MR. ZUCKERMAN: No. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: – the bill over to the insurance company? MR. ZUCKERMAN: No. MR. BUCHANAN: You just saw it. That is a partial capitulation, which is not enough, but it’s – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you mean, it’s not enough? Why can’t the insurance companies figure it out? MS. CLIFT: Exactly. MR. BUCHANAN: Get them out of – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They distribute that blame all over the place. MR. BUCHANAN: Get them out of our Catholic institutions is what the demand is. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of his side-door exit? MR. ZUCKERMAN: I thought it was partially effective. I don’t think it really dealt with the main issue. I think he’s been hurt politically, which was what that was all about. And I think that will last, because you have people, particularly in the church and in the sermons that they’re going to be delivering, that is really going to affect the Catholic vote. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How much money is at stake? How much money? MR. BUCHANAN: It’s not money. MR. ZUCKERMAN: It’s not money. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I know it’s not money. It’s principle and so forth. But how much is it – (laughter) – MR. ZUCKERMAN: Where does the money come from? It certainly doesn’t come from sales. MS. CLIFT: I can answer that. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How much – (inaudible) – MS. CLIFT: I can answer that. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: – involved in distributing contraceptives – MS. CLIFT: I can answer that, please. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are we going to go through the same old litany of IUD is all right? Are we going to go through the morning-after pill? Are we going to go through the whole rehearsal? MR. ZUCKERMAN: I am familiar with the moral issues. I’m not familiar with the commercial issues – MS. CLIFT: Well, I am. MR. ZUCKERMAN: – with the distribution of IUDs and contraceptives. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: These are pharmaceutical issues and the operational issues. MS. CLIFT: Excuse me. I am. It costs a woman about $600 a year for contraceptive services. The insurance – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How much a year? MS. CLIFT: Six hundred dollars. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Where does that go? MS. CLIFT: The insurance companies are happy to provide this free, because in the end it’s cheaper for them than to provide other services when people do not use contraception. And no religious institution gets to dictate public policy. MR. BUCHANAN: They do in their churches and they do in their schools. They do in their – MS. CLIFT: In their churches – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They do in their hospitals. MR. BUCHANAN: – hospitals. They do in their orphanages. MS. CLIFT: Not – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor – MR. BUCHANAN: Those are Catholic institutions. MS. CLIFT: Not when they employ hundreds of thousands of other people who are not Catholics. MR. LOWRY: Should churches – MS. CLIFT: And they are entitled – MR. BUCHANAN: You are forcing the church to do something it believes to be immoral. MR. LOWRY: So should churches themselves – MR. BUCHANAN: That’s where you’ve got a problem, Eleanor. MS. CLIFT: No, they’re not – MR. LOWRY: What is your principle for – MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I can’t believe we’re back to birth control…Issue Two: The War With Iran Over There.

Is it EWTN? Of course not. Is the Catholic voice ever heard at all? Yes.
 
Holly3278 said:
NPR definitely has some interesting stories sometimes but they are also a very liberal news source. I don’t trust them for most of their news.
Click to expand...
I think their international news is ok. I don’t listen to much else from NPR except occasionally world news and their classical music station. At any rate, I can’t say I’ve come across a private media outlet that qualifies as a trustworthy news source either.
 
JChapel said:
Lately, I’ve really gotten into listening to NPR. Not only does it seem to be all but devoid of the bias that floods cable TV networks, but it covers the news in a global setting, rather than a strictly national one. I find the non-news-related programming to be both very entertaining and educational. The audio nature of the network allows me to multitask while listening. The only downside that comes to mind is that all of the programming is strictly secular (which isn’t much of a downside, as it allows people of other faiths to enjoy it). Short of perhaps the Colbert Report, I’ve yet to find a compelling alternative.

What are your thoughts on NPR?

–James Chapel
Click to expand...
I’ve listened to public radio all my life. The news portion (Which is what NPR produces) is very in-depth and isn’t biased in the way cable news is. There are some more liberal programs produced by American Public Media, but that isn’t NPR. You just hear them on your local public radio station.

There are some programs, such as A Praire Home Companion, which have a lot of religious elements tied in, especially to the music.
 
I really like NPR. I learn quite a bit by listening. I also really enjoy the news as I lean left myself. I don’t, however, approve of how the cover the Church at times. Probably not the best place to get news about the Church.

Click and Clack are probably my favorite radio show. 😃 Those guys are nuts!
 
I always enjoy NPR, if only because you’ll usually hear unusual things on there; you learn about a lot of things you’d never hear about otherwise.

Also, Car Talk.
 
Luvz2travel said:
I listen to NPR all the time but there is definitely a bias there. They do stories on the liberal side all the time while stories with any conservative view are often few and far between. The guests on the talk shows tend to be very liberal as well. I still don’t think they are quite as blatant about it as the cable or regular tv news.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Nor as blatant as the rest of the radio dial. Several years ago our local talk station was bought by Clear Channel, soon all the local talent was gone, replace by the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd – Rush, Hannity, Michael Savage, &c.
This has happened all over the country.

He happy. You’ve won! The right rules the radio waves, why worry about one little network that lives of begging?

Personally I like a lot of NPR programs (esp. BBC news). Sure they are slanted but so is everybody. I would say they are less slanted than Fox “News”.
 
ringil said:
I really like NPR. I learn quite a bit by listening. I also really enjoy the news as I lean left myself. I don’t, however, approve of how the cover the Church at times. Probably not the best place to get news about the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. I know full well that any other secular source might not give me the best coverage on the Church, since they’re not exactly insiders anyway >.> …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top