EVERY TIME there's an OP about a diatribe on NPR;

[snot]

4. I don't hate NPR. But I do feel that,

e.g., the Diane Rehm show regularly features more than one very conservative pundit while rarely including anyone I'd consider genuinely liberal. And their evening business news is clearly run by insiders who either don't understand important issues relating to things like bank bailouts and austerity or don't want to talk about them.

A couple of e.g.'s: Diane Rehm's only real coverage of concerns re- electronic voting and tabulation has been to whitewash it.

Another e.g.: The business news show has still never adequately covered the issues involved in the bank bailout (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022133561 ). Pretty much everything in Taibbi's recent article, and more, should have been crystal clear to anyone qualified to produce a show on business and the economy (not to mention anyone who knows how to use the internet; see, e.g., http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-derivatives-for-dummies.html and the previous post it refers to). And beyond that, surely the questions were there for any journalist who knows enough to follow the money or ask, "who benefits"?

I continue to support NPR bec. it continues to air some great shows that have, apparently, not yet had the journalism crushed out of them. But much of what it present as news or commentary during the prime times is pretty feeble.

PS: I disagree that when you want a "left" point of view, there are "many choices." There are a few: Democracy Now, Alternet, Truthout, Common Dreams, Kos . . . but they're all bit players in terms of their resources and reach; they're Davids doing the jobs of the Goliaths.