Who’s the Foulest One of All?

Aggie and I recently confessed to each other that we’ve started to let NPR back into our lives, at least a little bit. In part, that’s due to the supply of decent news. Two stations in the local market have switched formats away from (mostly) conservative talk. That leaves sports talk (for me, anyway), various music stations, or our own thoughts—a dangerous prospect (for me, anyway).

But every time I think I’m in, NPR pushes me back out:

Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Redesigns ‘New Republic’
January 29, 2013 2:19 AM

Chris Hughes, 29, is the 98-year-old magazine’s publisher. He’s facing the same challenges other print media owners do: How to marry in-depth news articles with screens that seem to be getting smaller and smaller. Hughes tells Steve Inskeep it’s a task he’s prepared to tackle.

While pretending to examine new challenges to ink-and-paper publishing, NPR gave a five-minute free advertisement to a liberal publication and its multi-hundred-millionaire Obama PR flack—on the dime of the US taxpayer!

What will the curious listener find upon linking to The New Republic?

These “objective” stories:

Obamacare Sticker Shock: Not Very Shocking

Sure, some people’s premiums will go up as a result of Obamacare. Many more people will see their bills drop.

How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates

Moderate Republicanism is not intellectually dead. So where is it?

“Let me be clear …” A feisty beginning to the second term
FRANKLIN FOER and CHRIS HUGHES

Yes, there’s an interesting piece by Leon Wieseltier taking to task Obama’s “lighter” foreign policy, and yes, The New Republic is announcing a relaunch—but don’t the National Review or the Weekly Standard face the same challenges as TNR? Why aren’t Hughes’ progressive, redistributive millions as heavily criticized as the Koch brothers’ conservative millions?

NPR sees its own reflection when it looks at Chris Hughes and his new New Republic, just as MSNBC sees nothing wrong with putting a race-baiting riot-instigator on its prime-time line-up.

I might point out the Rush Limbaugh’s website is much more responsive than it used to be. His opening monologue is often available (in transcript) within maybe an hour of its delivery. And it’s free to all. (The audio is by subscription only.) Why wasn’t that worthy of a story? Don’t Rush’s 20 million daily listeners dwarf TNR’s 60 thousand (to be generous) readers, 20 issues a year?

Someone thinks so:

One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.

There’s no equivalence there. In fact, that’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, “A plague on both their houses.” On almost every issue, it’s, “Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree”—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?

What a coincidence that the only media entities Obama sites are the reliably conservative ones. If not for Rush and Fox, we would all agree: there would be no dissent.

Now, we debate all the time whether Obama is evil or merely stupid (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Is he an imbecile for getting it ass-backward—people flock to Rush and Fox precisely because of their conservative viewpoints, not in spite of them—or is he rallying his infinitely larger troops? Rush and Fox may dwarf the competition individually, but the combined forces of the Democrat-media complex dwarf them in return.

Rush and Fox are the minority, in other words, and they are as threatened as any minority standing against a hostile, arrogant demagogue and his lapdog press. NPR is no more or less full of shitzu than the rest of ‘em.

2 Comments »

  1. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    January 29, 2013 @ 9:09 am

    It’s a stacked deck.

    It is also a slow motion horror story: A perfectly nice nation with relatively reasonable people becomes addicted to what appears to be a mild, caffeine-like drug. But not only does this drug stimulate them, it creates bizarre thought patterns and completely alters our social interactions. All social occasions must begin with either a cheerful nod to Obama or a bigoted remark or reference to a known conservative operative. That is the price of membership to the social club once we are all sufficiently addicted to NPR et al. Pointing out logical inconsistencies sets one up for an unpleasant interaction, and too many of those lead to potential life-altering consequences, including job loss. So people become more careful and less willing to speak out.

    - Aggie

  2. Buck O'Fama said,

    January 29, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

    Two things I’ve never done in my life: bought a lottery ticket or listened to a single minute of NPR. I don’t watch the news anymore, haven’t since the 1980s. I don’t read newspapers anymore, gave up on them in the 1990s. You know what? It hasn’t hurt me one bit. Most of the stuff on there is g-a-r-b-a-g-e. My wife watches the local news (CBS from NYC.) Most nights there’s stories like “Will eating a lot of potatoes grow hair?” “How you can lose 10 lbs of ugly fat WITHOUT cutting off your head!” “Stay tuned for which celebrity crashed whose car into what lamppost after overdosing on what drug.” They’ve spent most of their time recently shilling for the Superbowl which just happens to be telecast on CBS this year. I won’t be watching that either.

    Garbage. If anything REALLY important happens, you’ll find out about it. Trust me.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment