The acid test for NPR/PBS

[Senior citizen]

When Ronald Reagan was President, NPR & PBS radio always referred to him with the utmost respect, even when reporting the more horrific things, like cutting the benefits of a quarter of a million totally disabled people, putting the mentally ill out on the street, or trading arms for hostages.

When Bill Clinton became President NPR/PBS was unable to accept his Presidency. From the inauguration on, they referred to, "the President," or "Mister Clinton," but were unable for eight years, with the exception of one guy on one occasion who was leaving them soon anyway, to say the words "President Clinton" on air. I've been calling them national rePUBLICan radio ever since.

How will they handle President Kerry? Will they be able to accept his Presidency, or will they do the same thing they did with Big Dog? I feel that if they cannot accept the will of the public, they should be replaced with public broadcasting that can.

[gbwarming]

1. Really? one guy, on one occaision? You must have missed jun 26,1998

You set up a pretty flimsy strawman there. Not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of NPR and PBS like the FAIR studies below.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=26-Jun-1998

Two 'guys' (Linda Wertheimer & Mary Kay Magistad) on that particular day mentioned 'President Clinton' at least once in stories about Bejing and Ken Starr's attempt to make secret service agents testify.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html

[Senior citizen]

4. Thanks, I did miss that day and I'm happy to know of it.

By that time I'd more or less stopped listening.

But I remember well the morning I woke up, turned on the radio, and heard somebody refer to "President Clinton." In amazement, I looked at the radio dial, only to find that I'd left it tuned to CBS (my radio got the audio from 3 local TV stations) the night before.

Okay, that's 3 instances in 8 years. And you know what? Even if you could find 100 instances in those 8 years, it wouldn't change my mind because they NEVER had referred to Raygun as "Mister" because it wouldn't have been respectful. So, perhaps you can dig up one or two instances when they did (but I doubt it), but don't waste your time, because rare exceptions like that only prove the rule.

[cprise]

2. First off, they're more Pathetic then Public

Those networks are nothing more than charities that receive the bulk of their revenue from corporations and the wealthy when times get tough. So, they serve the interests of the wealthy when it comes to news reporting.

What money doesn't come from charity is allocated from the federal budget --a completely political process. PBS and NPR fail the main criteria of a public broadcasting organization, which is to serve as an independant voice unbeholden to the government, commercial interests, or any particular class of people.

[qb]

3. They both suck. I've switched to AAR.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. How do they treat Bush?