DougCounty (Ken Lassman)


Comment history

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

If you want to go there, they aren't broadcasters, either; they only supply content to public radio stations, which are the media, in the same way that Public Radio International and American Public Media provide content as well. So what's your point? Did you also notice that NPR is the most respected source of news on the radio?

April 16, 2017 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

The research did NOT suggest a liberal bias: NPR was solidly in the central portion of the continuum, to the right of what is considered classic liberal media and much closer to the center of the continuum than what is considered classic conservative media outlets. The only thing that suggests a liberal bias was the Forbes headline, which was not part of the research at all, rather the Forbes bias inserted onto the research.
And then we'll just have to agree to disagree on the legitimacy of a publicly owned radio and television outlet as part of the publicly owned airwaves which is otherwise dominated by information sources that are driven by profit margins. I not only think it is legitimate, I think it's essential. Look at where the BBC is on the continuum--do you think it should not exist either because it is publicly operated?

April 16, 2017 at 12:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

As usual, you missed my point, Scott. The airwaves are public property that privately owned media rent at bargain basement rates to make huge profits. Allocating funds for a publicly owned media outlet to also be present on the public airwaves is a reasonable and even necessary part of being a democracy, unless you think that you'll get unbiased information from folks who pay to get onto the soapbox of private pay-to-play media. If you don't like the way public media presents information, then get involved with making sure the public media is objective, not shut it down.

April 15, 2017 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

Oh, so now it's public broadcasting that is responsible for all government waste? Don't you think that is a bit burdensome to lay the blame of wasteful government spending at the feet of public broadcasting, to say nothing of questionable logic? The amount of public good that comes out of the tiny slice of the federal budget that goes to public broadcasting is indeed a good investment, and helps educate the average citizen on a host of complex topics that nobody else bothers to go into. I daresay it is the price of an educated populace which is essential for a functional democracy. And a small price at that. And believe it or not, there are regular conservative-leaning commentators and legislators who are interviewed as well; if you're not aware of that, then I suggest that you listen more.

April 15, 2017 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

Get your facts straight, Scott. Every broadcast media has to apply to the FCC to receive a license to use the publicly owned airwaves. They could not exist without the federal license they must apply for and abide by their rules to continue to use. So as a citizen who owns the airwaves, I have absolutely no problem providing a teensy weensy bit of my federal taxes to providing a publicly owned media venue that is supported mostly through private contributions anyway.

April 14, 2017 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR


No, I didn't just say that because I said so; I read the article and came up with what I think are sound reasons for questioning your conclusions, which you are entitled to do yourself if you want to take the time to do so.

And I have no idea how you thought public radio and television are somehow a private entity which we are bankrolling with public funds. It is a public entity that is being supported mostly by listeners' contribution, with a small base of public money thrown in for good measure. Furthermore, the airwaves are public property which private radio stations make money off by selling advertisements to create a profit above and beyond what their license to use public airwaves costs.

April 14, 2017 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

yeah, I know. See my review of this kind of research and it's relevance to the "bias" of NPR news broadcasting below.

April 14, 2017 at 7:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR


Something is preventing me from posting a reply to your Duke research link, so apologize for posting down here instead of in the thread. At any rate:

Glad you took the time to provide the citation: thanks. Unfortunately it does not really support your conclusion that there is a liberal bias in NPR for a number of reasons:

1) The analyses of twitter networks was done in 2010 and presented in 2011. Not only has there been a considerable shift in the political climate from just 2 years into the Obama Administration, the placement of NPR back then on their conservative-liberal scale could be just as easily described as centrist than leftist. Traditionally viewed liberal media were way further over to the left than NPR, and traditionally viewed conservative media were way further right of center than NPR's slightly to the left of center placement on the continuum.

2) The applicability of analyzing twitter networks was by the authors' admissions best applied to individuals. In fact they dropped trying to apply it to corporations because the results were so soft, and I think applying it to NPR is a similarly questionable application. In fact the New York Times coverage of the continuum left NPR off the scale.

3) There has been no published research that replicates or updates the analyses as it applies to media--why is that? The social sciences are subpar in doing that, for a number of reasons, but because of that it's best to view the conclusions as somewhat tentative and certainly not set in stone or anything more than a possible snapshot-in-time type of observation.

So thanks for the link. Interesting, but certainly not anywhere close to leading to your conclusion.

April 13, 2017 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

Seriously, the small percentage of federal funds that goes to Public Broadcasting plays an important role in maintaining public access to good journalism and it helps attract matching private funds in ways that make public media possible. Pay-to-listen networks like Sirius and XM are no substitute, any more than a privately owned mall is a substitute for a public downtown.

April 13, 2017 at 11:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Value KPR

Still waiting for your "Duke research" citation....

April 12, 2017 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )