NPR fair and balanced...?????

[westwall]

I think not! "Funders" directing how NPR covers climate change.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg4Z7zZ62tQ&feature=related]NPR Officers: Climate change deniers will only be covered as a political story not a scientific one - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

We're only supposed to follow the money when skeptics are involved.

 

[mamooth]

Of course no one thinks NPR is balanced. That's why NPR is commonly referred to as "Nice Polite Republicans".

Juan, Cokie and Mara were their top anchors, for pete's sake, all of 'em staunch conservatives. NPR especially adores Wall Street, being that's where their money comes from. If you want to be on NPR's hate-list, just criticize a banker.

Now, if we do follow the money, we find _none_ of it goes to AGW scientists. They literally get nothing for accepting AGW theory. That's another reason to trust them -- they could get more money by switching to the denialist side, but their integrity prevents them from doing so.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Funny that some actually believe that NPR is a liberal network.

We call those people who have never listened to it.

 

[daveman]

Of course no one thinks NPR is balanced. That's why NPR is commonly referred to as "Nice Polite Republicans".

Juan, Cokie and Mara were their top anchors, for pete's sake, all of 'em staunch conservatives. NPR especially adores Wall Street, being that's where their money comes from. If you want to be on NPR's hate-list, just criticize a banker.

Now, if we do follow the money, we find _none_ of it goes to AGW scientists. They literally get nothing for accepting AGW theory. That's another reason to trust them -- they could get more money by switching to the denialist side, but their integrity prevents them from doing so.

Wow. That's incredibly naive -- and astoundingly wrong.

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.​

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course no one thinks NPR is balanced. That's why NPR is commonly referred to as "Nice Polite Republicans".

Juan, Cokie and Mara were their top anchors, for pete's sake, all of 'em staunch conservatives. NPR especially adores Wall Street, being that's where their money comes from. If you want to be on NPR's hate-list, just criticize a banker.

Now, if we do follow the money, we find _none_ of it goes to AGW scientists. They literally get nothing for accepting AGW theory. That's another reason to trust them -- they could get more money by switching to the denialist side, but their integrity prevents them from doing so.

How odd a view.. What the alarmists GET is patronage. THeir very livelihood DEPENDS on bending their interests to match the available funding. When NOAA wants to try and indict CO2 as the cause of oyster die-offs --- THAT'S what Marine Shellfish Biologists will be studying.. Not WHY they are dying off -- but are they dying off in farms primary due to CO2 and acidification. (the most recent answers to that seem to be no -- which greatly pisses off the sponsors).

Your assertions that they GET NOTHING is simply absurb and surreal... I spent 12 years writing proposals and soliciting basic research from the 3 letter agencies in Wash. RARELY did we get a "clean contract" that wasn't tainted by the desires of the sponsors to push policy or future funding for a particular cause..

As far as NPR is concerned. Their main desire is to project snobbishness and elitism. But I find the conflicting sounds of jug band music and opera really really annoying. Especially as a background for any valid scientific discussion..

 

[Old Rocks]

Since the denialists have no science backing them up, just the political people like Inhofe, why should they be covered as anything but politics?

 

[bripat9643]

Of course no one thinks NPR is balanced. That's why NPR is commonly referred to as "Nice Polite Republicans".

Juan, Cokie and Mara were their top anchors, for pete's sake, all of 'em staunch conservatives. NPR especially adores Wall Street, being that's where their money comes from. If you want to be on NPR's hate-list, just criticize a banker.

Juan, Cokie and Mara are "staunch Republicans?" Why should anyone listen to a thing you say after post a whopper like that?

Now, if we do follow the money, we find _none_ of it goes to AGW scientists. They literally get nothing for accepting AGW theory. That's another reason to trust them -- they could get more money by switching to the denialist side, but their integrity prevents them from doing so.

AGW "scientists" get billions in research dollars from the federal government each and every year.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny that some actually believe that NPR is a liberal network.

We call those people who have never listened to it.

Only a Maoist would claim that NPR isn't liberal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think not! "Funders" directing how NPR covers climate change.



NPR Officers: Climate change deniers will only be covered as a political story not a scientific one - YouTube

I watched the first few minutes and I was thinking, maybe if this dude stopped stuffing his face then he'd tell that condescending ***** to shut up and do some real journalism. But then he spoke and said, "all educated scientists have accepted climate change (IE global warming) as fact," and I was like OH NO YOU ******* DIDN'T!

Yea, NPR does a pretty good job at times of appearing to be objective (they're no MSNBC); but then you listen to these d-bags talk when they think nobody is watching and they're just so ******* full of themselves.

 

[editec]

The concept of unbiased NEWS reporting is a goofy notion.

If one reports the facts one must decide which facts are important.

That ENDS any hope one has of reporting without BIAS.

I know this confuses many of you who imagine that somehow what facts must be reported are obvious.

They're not.

 

[skookerasbil]

Funny that some actually believe that NPR is a liberal network.

We call those people who have never listened to it.

Only a Maoist would claim that NPR isn't liberal.

indeed bri.......but some of these people have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The concept of unbiased NEWS reporting is a goofy notion.

If one reports the facts one must decide which facts are important.

That ENDS any hope one has of reporting without BIAS.

I know this confuses many of you who imagine that somehow what facts must be reported are obvious.

They're not.

It's semi-goofy. Bias is a part of everything. But reporters can hold themselves to standards. They can let the truth be their bottom line. Sadly, too many media members are cheerleaders and not truth seekers. That ultimately reflects our society.

 

[mamooth]

Your assertions that they GET NOTHING is simply absurb and surreal...

Those grants require a detailed paper trail as to how they're spent, and it's very illegal for a person to pocket money themselves from a grant. If you're not just giving us yet another conspiracy theory, you should be reporting those evil scientists to the feds and getting them tossed into jail.

Most people have little idea of how grants work. They think that if Michael Mann gets a million dollar grant, it goes straight into his pocket. Nope. Grants go to institutions, not people. The institution spends it on labs, utilities, upkeep, janitor salaries, scholarships, grad student salaries, trips to Greenland, and so on. They're not allowed to give Michael Mann a bonus from it. Not a penny. Hence, nothing.

Now, any AGW scientist could instantly double their salary by switching sides and becoming a denialist. That's where the big cash is. Follow the denialist money to find the corruption. It's a credit to their integrity that most AGW scientists refuse to lie for money.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think not! "Funders" directing how NPR covers climate change.



NPR Officers: Climate change deniers will only be covered as a political story not a scientific one - YouTube

Its not a scientific story.

 

[mamooth]

Juan, Cokie and Mara are "staunch Republicans?" Why should anyone listen to a thing you say after post a whopper like that?

Juan. Job at FOX. 'Nuff said.

Cokie. The official representative of the beltway elite, a very conservative bunch.

Mara. Another FOX employee. Auto-hates every single thing any Democrat has done. The most blatant GOP shill of the 3.

NPR has to whore itself out to corporations to pay the bills. Therefore, NPR is extremely corporate-friendly, and thus Republican-friendly.

 

[Papageorgio]

Of course no one thinks NPR is balanced. That's why NPR is commonly referred to as "Nice Polite Republicans".

Juan, Cokie and Mara were their top anchors, for pete's sake, all of 'em staunch conservatives. NPR especially adores Wall Street, being that's where their money comes from. If you want to be on NPR's hate-list, just criticize a banker.

Now, if we do follow the money, we find _none_ of it goes to AGW scientists. They literally get nothing for accepting AGW theory. That's another reason to trust them -- they could get more money by switching to the denialist side, but their integrity prevents them from doing so.

Mamooth, to you Stalin was a staunch conservative.

 

[westwall]

I think not! "Funders" directing how NPR covers climate change.



NPR Officers: Climate change deniers will only be covered as a political story not a scientific one - YouTube

Its not a scientific story.

Academic fraud is not a scientific story? Really? Since when is that not a scientific story?

Your name isn't Lysenko is it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think not! "Funders" directing how NPR covers climate change.



NPR Officers: Climate change deniers will only be covered as a political story not a scientific one - YouTube

Its not a scientific story.

Academic fraud is not a scientific story? Really? Since when is that not a scientific story?

Your name isn't Lysenko is it?

What academic fraud?

 

[daveman]

Your assertions that they GET NOTHING is simply absurb and surreal...

Those grants require a detailed paper trail as to how they're spent, and it's very illegal for a person to pocket money themselves from a grant. If you're not just giving us yet another conspiracy theory, you should be reporting those evil scientists to the feds and getting them tossed into jail.

Most people have little idea of how grants work. They think that if Michael Mann gets a million dollar grant, it goes straight into his pocket. Nope. Grants go to institutions, not people. The institution spends it on labs, utilities, upkeep, janitor salaries, scholarships, grad student salaries, trips to Greenland, and so on. They're not allowed to give Michael Mann a bonus from it. Not a penny. Hence, nothing.

Now, any AGW scientist could instantly double their salary by switching sides and becoming a denialist. That's where the big cash is. Follow the denialist money to find the corruption. It's a credit to their integrity that most AGW scientists refuse to lie for money.

Ignoring Post #5 doesn't mean it's not really there, leftist magical thinking notwithstanding.