NPR is more conservative than Fox News
This week, Fox News’ senior executive — and long-time Republican strategist — Roger Ailes served himself up another heaping plate of vitriol.
Describing the executives who run NPR, he said, “They are, of course, Nazis.” He was speaking with Howard Kurtz, a columnist for the Daily Beast and a CNN host.
“They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view. They don’t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive.”
Ailes was responding to the recent dismissal of Juan Williams (certainly no conservative) who was cut loose by NPR after he acknowledged during a Fox broadcast that he was frightened by Muslims wearing traditional garb on airplanes.
We’ve had a long and interesting debate here on the In Box about the Williams affair; and NCPR’s manager, Ellen Rocco, has stated bluntly that the situation was handled poorly by NPR.
I want to step past that case to make a broader point that is often overlooked in this discussion about the current media climate: In every meaningful respect, public radio is more conservative than Fox.
If you listen to a day’s worth of NPR programming — I’m going to set aside for the moment the regional programs produced by NCPR — you will find a wide range of information that aims to celebrate and honor and explore the diversity of American culture.
You will find classical music produced by some of our finest orchestras. You’ll find jazz and country and bluegrass.
You will find conversations about the best literature and the most innovative ideas. You will find deep exploration of our history. You will find a wide array of thinkers and scholars talking about the main issues of the day.
A lot of those thinkers will be bluntly, unapologetically (but also intelligently) conservative.
But it’s not just that we include a lot of conservative voices in our conversation. Broadly speaking, the approach is “conservative.”
What do I mean? Simply the fact that NPR is trying to reflect and talk in challenging, skeptical ways about the nation as it exists, with the full complexity of our history, our tensions, and our aspirations.
Conservatism has a long history of wrestling with the facts as they really are, and eschewing fuzzy-minded idealism and fantasy.
But there is also a powerful faction on the right that indulges in a fictional apocalyptic vision of America, in which the good guys are “normal” Americans and the bad guys are “Nazis” or worse.
In deciding to go down this path, Fox News obviously found an excellent business model, embracing what Richard Hofstadter famously called the “paranoid style in American politics.”
Their programs mix a colorful blend of tabloid-excess, political propaganda, PG-13 smut, a smattering of legitimate journalism, and pure kookery.
And it works, attracting millions of viewers each week, many of them hungry for populist bromides and easy scapegoats that together might explain the nation’s current economic malaise.
But successful as it is, the Fox formula certainly isn’t conservative.
If anything, it is the opposite of conservative — not liberal, of course, but hysterical and unrooted from any meaningful tradition of American life or culture.
In the midst of his baldly unhinged attack — Nazis? Really? — Ailes does raise one legitimate question, and that is whether public broadcasting should continue to receive taxpayer support.
That’s a fair debate to have. So as we talk about the future of public radio, let me leave you with some facts.
First, I can tell you from personal experience that the staff at NPR (and at local member station) reflect a broad range of political ideas, from the very liberal to the very conservative.
Yes, there was a time when NPR and its stations were staffed by hippies and counter-culture types.
These days, we tend to be middle-class folks with mortgages, kids in college, and the same muddled range of opinions that most Americans have.
Second, the latest survey that I could find shows that NPR’s audience is evenly divided between conservative listeners (29%), people who describe themselves as middle of the road (30%) and liberals (31%).
One of the “conservative” aspects of our mission is that we aim to be a forum where everyone is welcome, a sort of town hall meeting approach where the discussions will be civil and open-minded.
I think those survey numbers reflect some success there.
Thirdly, despite Fox’s fact-free claims to the contrary, public radio is hugely popular, attracting nearly 34 million listeners per week.
Finally, a significant amount of public broadcasting’s dollars go to pay for specialized programming — most of it in public television –that would probably be unsustainable in the marketplace.
The vast majority of this stuff isn’t political. It’s opera and programs about painting and explorations of science.
Also, a big chunk of taxpayer dollars go to support stations in rural areas. The big urban stations would certainly survive deep public cuts, as would NPR.
But dozens if not hundreds of small-town stations across the country would likely be forced to shut down, or become repeater-stations for nearby urban or suburban broadcasters.
I won’t deny my bias: I think that would be a great loss.
So what do you think? What do you think about the public radio you experience, as opposed to the strawman institution that Fox conjures up?
As always, comments welcome.
Fox News is now criticizing the President’ new book for praising Sitting Bull! Fox News says Sitting Bull defeated Custer at Little big Horn, and that makes him a bad person who is worthy of no praise. Sitting Bull!!! 130 years ago!!! Where was Fox News when the USPS released a stamp in his honor under Bush? Fox News has no shame.
Fox has a big audience and makes lots of money. I prefer NPR. I am sometimes irritated by NPR bending over backwards to be fair to conservatives (at the expense of rationalism).
You are wearing rosy-tinted glasses when you talk about bias, and everything appears rosy to you.
Statistics and polls can say whatever you want them to say.
I think you will find that each individual will rate NPR according to their own subjective bias.
I think Fox is conservative and NPR is liberal. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being conservative, I give Fox a 3 and NPR a 7.
JDM: If statistics and polls can say whatever you want them to say, then show me a poll or statistic that says NPR has a liberal bias or Faux News is Fair and Balanced
When I was growing up, we frequently listened to KPFA, one of the first “listener supported” radio stations. It was out of Berkeley California, and as far left as Fox is right (maybe farther). NPR is very different: truly fair and balanced. David Brooks is one of the smartest, and most thoughtful conservatives around and a frequent commentator on NPR. If NPR wanted a stupid conservative as a straw man, there are many available. Fox is interested in providing entertainment for conservatives and they do a good job.
JDM, Of course “each individual will rate NPR according to their own subjective bias”. We all view everything through the filters of our own experience and opinion. The poll reflects that since the respondents were all NPR listeners. They identify enough with NPR to listen just as FOX listeners identify with FOX.
Brian, RE: The funding issue. It has always fascinated me that opponents of NPR/PBS argue that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to express the “liberal” views that they claim dominate NPR/PBS. At the same time they never note that consumer dollars (those same people) are being used to broadcast the views of FOX by virtue of the advertising that supports them. We buy products, companies use some of the markup to advertise and get a tax write off for the ad expense. The difference is that we don’t see a direct line between the money we spend and supporting FOX and we do see the direct line between paying taxes and supporting NPR/PBS. Hidden in that unseen connection between buying products and supporting FOX is a group of corporate decision makers who are not responsible to us, the public. Unlike our elected representatives they can make decisions that the majority might not agree with and do so with impunity because they are invisible to the public at large.
Faux News:
????
Two things. Google “NPR bias poll”. You will get about 1/4 million to choose from. I don’t need to do that for you.
The other thing is that no matter which poll I cite, you will simply say, “polls can say whatever you want them to say”.
That is my point to begin with.
I Just Googled and found nothing that supports the claim that NPR is biased. Why don’t you pick one and post a link here.
Anyone who listens to foreign broadcasters knows how conservative (tempermentally) NPR is. Foreign broadcasters are much more aggressive in challenging mealy-mouthed statements by politicians, to not let them get away with unchallenged platitudes. NPR interviewers tend to be pretty reticent by comparison. NPR also subscribes to the standard American journalistic recipe of a neutral he said/she said while foreign news outlets try to explore whether he and/or she is actually telling the truth. I think NPR is so reticent to find the broader truth in its journalism (particularly its political reporting) because it’s afraid that the truth will be “biased” and that will piss off half of the peanut gallery. NPR is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t. I think N*C*PR’s journalism does a much better job at trying to find as much of the truth as possible, of scratching beyond the surface, rather than just being a transcription service; NPR’s non-political reporting is pretty good at that too. Of course, NCPR too gets criticized when the truth is “biased” but I think it has more guts and therefore more value to listeners.
As for funding, there are many ways to fund using tax dollars. It could happen in the form of direct support or it might happen in the form of tax code considerations. Do commercial broadcasting organizations enjoy any tax write-offsconsiderations for their operational support, (I’m asking, as I don’t know)? I do know that there are many rules in our tax code that give special consideration to targeted businesses and industries to write down their business costs. Now, I am not a CPA or a tax specialist, but it seems that when one defined group receives tax considerations, that other groups of taxpayers are going to have to make up the difference. As I said, there are many ways to give financial support besides direct support.
Some parts of NPR are not too conservative. Take for example commentary by the late Dan Schorr. It seemed like almost every comment he ever had about George Bush was negative. That doesn’t seem too balanced to me. I think that many NPR listeners would counter that every comment on Bush should be negative. That tells you something right there. Also maybe there is a perception problem that hurts public radio. One of the stations I listen to here has things like Alternative Radio and Free Speech Radio News on after NPR. That don’t make em look to conservative.
Faux News says,
“I Just Googled and found nothing that supports the claim that NPR is biased. Why don’t you pick one and post a link here.”
Sorry, I can’t help you.
Fox news wants to keep their listeners ignorant of actual facts. That way they can put out more opinion. Opinion is selling these days. Republican mantra “tell a lie enough times and people will start to believe you”.
“I think that many NPR listeners would counter that every comment on Bush should be negative. That tells you something right there.”
That doesn’t tell you much at all. There are a lot of conservatives who are very negative toward Bush… including the small government tea partiers who are popular right now. Just ask the resident conservative Tea Partier Brett what his opinions of the guy are.
I don’t find that public radio is conservative at all idealogically; i don’t think it has an axe to grind. If anything, its mission is delivering reasoned analysis in a non-commercial space, where there is time for reason, from whatever the source. All “conservative radio” is commercial, from what I can tell–although there is probably a field of religious radio this is non-commercial (perhaps Brian could tell us…). However,whenever reasoned analysis–by which i mean time for talk and arguments rather than emotions and hardened positions delivered in sound bites–is considered anti-conservative (Ailes), I wonder, Why the fear of reason? For liberal broadcasting, I would suggest MSNBC, which heaps attitude and unreason (in a commercial space, i might add) that, though often expressing an attitude or emotion that is consonant with mine, is not what I would call reasoned or in any way interested in making an solid argument. So, where does this leave me: believing that the key to reasonableness lies in non-commercial, i.e., public broadcasting–where programming isn’t burdened with provoking a viewer- or listenership–that will satisfy advertisers in numbers. This is something the public–i.e., taxpayers–should be interested in keeping alive. If not, reasonable people (and underwriters so interested) will take it up–as, to a great extent, they have.
Truth has a liberal bias.
NPR is the best source of news available. Cable news is not worthing watching and I haven’t watched in months, and even then I was forced to watch it as it was on the reception room in the dr’s office.
Fox News came up with the slogan “Fair and Balanced,” which is a meaningless, advertising opinion.
I don’t search for who is liberal or who is conservative. I don’t care what someone claims to be or what others say they are.
Taxpayers? My tax dollars go to pay for many things I don’t like. Would anyone on the right or left, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal like to have all budget items go up for a yes or no vote by the public? I strongly doubt it.
But I would love to see all advertising expenses not be allowed to be deducted from individual and corporate incomes. This would include all contributions to political ads.
Nazis? Liberals are Nazis? The Nazi platform was violently anti Communist, Kinda like that great liberal thinker Joe McCarthy.
As Ron White says, “You just can’t fix stupid.”
I believe the characterizations (liberal and conservative) applied to the news are a sorry comment on the present environment. The “democratization” of the media has had an effect that seems counter intuitive. Rather than enrich the dialog, it has parochialized the attitudes that are expressed and trivialized the positions taken on issues of great importance. The dueling talking heads on FOX and MSNBC are a disservice to the country and I also believe that the nitwits on MSNBC have earned a special place in hell for “legitimizing” their counterparts on FOX. This stuff can’t be confused with news. It is polemic of the worst type. However, the most disheartening aspect of this food fight is the fact that Boobus Americanus tunes in.
[Apologia: a revise–I made an unpardonable subsitution of “conservative” for “liberal” in my opening sentence in previous post, which doesn’t help my claim for “reason!” Reposted below]
I don’t find that public radio is LIBERAL at all idealogically; i don’t think it has an axe to grind. If anything, its mission is delivering reasoned analysis in a non-commercial space, where there is time for reason, from whatever the source. All “conservative radio” is commercial, from what I can tell–although there is probably a field of religious radio this is non-commercial (perhaps Brian could tell us…). However,whenever reasoned analysis–-by which i mean time for talk and arguments rather than emotions and hardened positions delivered in sound bites–-is considered anti-conservative (Ailes), I wonder, Why the fear of reason? For liberal broadcasting, I would suggest MSNBC, which heaps attitude and unreason (in a commercial space, i might add) that, though often expressing an attitude or emotion that is consonant with mine, is not what I would call reasoned or in any way interested in making an solid argument. So, where does this leave me: believing that the key to reasonableness lies in non-commercial, i.e., public broadcasting–where programming isn’t burdened with provoking a viewer- or listenership-–that will satisfy advertisers in numbers. This is something the public–i.e., taxpayers–should be interested in keeping alive. If not, reasonable people (and underwriters so interested) will take it up-–as, to a great extent, they have.
I like NPR and I would be considered conservative on many issues.
It depends on the program, NPR is not monolithic. I would say though that there is a center left bias to some degree if you just look at the various news programs that are run.
For example I think a far Left radical will probably have an easier time of getting air play on NPR than a far right radical. Consider the professor (not a regular NPR contributor) who said that the world would be better off if born again Christians were gone from the face of the earth. Okay fine this is a view of some of the radical secular atheists; but I don’t think David Duke would get the same air time to talk about getting rid of Jews.
But for me I will take quality slightly left programing over trashy badly done right wing programing.
Paul’s comment illustrates the misconceptions and lack of critical thinking that underpins the “liberal bias” canard.
Because one commentator was critical of one person (Pres. Bush) and because one NPR affiliate (not NPR itself, mind you) airs left-of-center non-NPR programming, that “proves” NPR National is biased.
The Albany NPR affiliate also airs commentaries by right-wing Prof. Herb London and airs the business oriented show Marketplace. I guess that proves they’re conservative! NCPR allows comments from people like JDR and Bret, which makes NCPR far right too, eh?!
There, fixed it.
Now Brian, if only you would apply the same scrutiny to stuff at NPR perhaps then you could move closer to being objective. Case in point. The opinion piece “Foreign Policy: GOP Know-Nothings And Snookiism” by David Rothkopf now available at the NPR web site.
The “baldly unhinged attack” starts with an ad hominem and false analogy equating the Tea Party with “America’s first know-nothings”. He continues with his ad hominem:
It doesn’t seem to matter to NPR that this description of the Tea Party is factually incorrect. The Washington Post conducted extensive interviews with Tea Party members. In the article “Gauging the scope of the tea party movement in America” they came to the conclusion:
New York Times/CBS News Poll: National Survey of Tea Party Supporters found “Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public …”. The “know – nothings” comment is using insult in place of reasoned argument and that is bias. What also is not noted is the fact that Rothkopf was a member of the Clinton administration. Although in this case it is clearly a hit piece on the Tea Party and Republicans and clearly partisan, the failure to note the authors previous political activity is telling.
With regard to the innumeracy Mr. Rothkopf might be surprised to know that our present administration also has a problem with arithmetic. In an article at ABC news titled “Obama Health Secretary: ‘We’ve Got a Lot of Reeducation to Do’” Sebelius engages in double counting.
In fact, Sebelius view is not supported by either independent actuaries or the CBO. As a point of fact, economist are not accountants.The independent actuary Richard Foster wrote:
The CBO chimed in with:
The CBO goes on to say:
It doesn’t appear that ability to do arithmetic is confined to any one political ideology.
Bias can come in many different ways. A smear like in the opinion piece referenced above. It also shows itself by using lie by omission. Sometimes it is omission of facts that don’t fit the narrative. Other times it is ignoring a story all together by not reporting it.
Brian, do you think once in while you could provide a link to your source. I found a number of surveys on NPR’s listeners but none that included political leanings. To put the listeners in perspective a pole that has been conducted every year by Gallup since 1992 shows the general population self identifies conservative 42%, middle of the road 35%, and liberals 20%. This tells me that people that self identify as liberals are more likely to be a NPR listener. It doesn’t tell me much more. What it doesn’t tell me is what they are listening to (music, news, commentary). It should be no surprise to anybody that people will tend to listen to news that leans to the same side of the political spectrum as they do. Unless you have a breakdown of listeners political identification by programming category the listening numbers you supplied are useless.
PS: I would love to post links but it seems that more than one link sticks you in an approval cue. Is it possible to place the regulars in a filter to avoid this?
I wish I had notinthevillages gift for language. Well done.
I’m not a Fox news watcher. I’m sure that’s a shock to some, but I don’t. Still, I don’t see any harm in having one major dissenting voice among all the other choices. If you don’t like it what Fox says then watch MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNNHLN, Democracy Now!, PBS or Al Jazerra. This to me sounds like an echo chmber for Rockerfellers “kill Fox and MSNBC” comment. (Not to worry Senator. GE is selling off MSNBC and NBC to Commcast.) Same with radio, you don’t want to listen to Rush, Glenn or Laura then don’t. If you search enough you can get WKBW or another “Air America” type station. Freedom of choice. If left leaning outlets have a hard time competing with right leaning outlets…well, that’s the free market, isn’t it?
As for Ailes comments, I find it pretty sad that a guy who had out and out lied about a particular conservative talk show host and never provided anything like proof to back up his statements would take Ailes to task for using a common term for overbearing control freaks- Nazis. Where was the outrage when people were going on and on about “right wing Nazis”? The “Nazi” label has been applied to everyone from Leona Helmsly (sp?) to Rachel Ray to George Bush to Michelle Obama so it’s not like it’s a real nasty remark.
Stinks when real life hauls off and smacks ya up side the head, doesn’t it?
What about Christian Radio? Why do Christian organizations get tax exempt status when they fund political radio programming?
Funny NPR is accused of being liberal; I hear Newt Gingrich on NPR more than I hear Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders put together…or even any mention that they exist.
I really don’t understand the how or why of accusing someone of being a Liberal or a Conservative. Is it a sin? Should they be going to Confession or to jail?
Let’s you and him have a fight so I can watch.
News is becoming boring.
I suppose that might be true Knuck, but is he on there as a respected guest expert or as that buffoonish idiot that represents those right wing morons?
Pete, the difference in this case is that an organization that takes gov’t funding and pledges to remain non-biased clearly is. IMO NPR/PBS and the CPB need to stop taking Federal funding. Simple as that. We’re always told “it’s only 3% of the budget”. Fine then, surely CPB can find corporate backing to provide that 3% if it’s so important. Then there’s no more problem with that issue. The rest will simply be another matter of degree with respect to bias- Fox is clearly biased in one direction, MSNBC in the other. NPR/PBS can determine just where they wish to stand.
Not to beat around the bush too much, the Republicans and Fox news are essentially dishonest liars. All politicians bend the truth somewhat, but the current conservative intelligencia seems to feel that “truth” is secondary to “power”. Outrage is their favored mode. Thus the charge that NPR is a far-left Nazi organization. In what universe? Death panels, destroying the greatest health care system in the world, job-killing health care reform, driving up the deficit, nationalizing health care etc. All factually wrong but emotionally ok in the “truthyness” sense. Whats worse is the thuggery that goes with it. Now they are going to go after NPR funding. Classic intimidation technique. This is essentially the same approach that all autocratic regimes use to control public opinion by controlling the press. At least they arent going to jail and/or beat up the NPR staff as would happen in many countries. Whose the Nazi here?
No, controlling the press would be for example using the government’s power to outlaw your business model, which is what many liberals are talking about doing with the so called fairness doctrine to get rid of conservative talk radio. Fox news is a wonderful expression of free speech, as is crazy Rush; people don’t like it because they disagree with the opinions. The best way to counter that is of course with more speech. The Republicans are no bigger liars than the Democrats just because someone honestly believes they are right and someone else is wrong does not mean they are liars, it might just mean they are wrong.
If NPR gets government funding then shouldn’t Fox news? The fact is taking away government funding is not intimidation not unless all news outlets are getting government funding and you only take away one, but that is not the case. If you are going to use taxpayer money you should provide a neutral public service.
But regardless most local public radio stations receive very little if any government funding, NPR would be fine without government funding.
I also don’t think NPR is that liberal at all and they provide a good product, I think FOX news is often just not very good. I do like some of their programming but not most of it.
The difference Mervel is that while some liberals may have talked about a so-called fairness doctrine, the Republicans/conservatives are actually going to self-righteously (at least threaten) to try to do it. And no one is calling Rush a Nazi even though he is far far closer in philosophy etc. to a Nazi than is NPR.
Oh yeah; comparing NPR to the Nazi Party is just ignorant. Everyone is a Nazi today, it used to be fascist; everyone was a fascist, it is just stupid. Frankly this sort of use of language is kind of a problem in that we do have real Nazi’s and Fascists in the world today both in Europe and the US, so if we waste the word on people we just don’t like I think it loses its power when we really do meet a member of one of the Nazi/Aryan Nation parties.
It is important to watch the pea under the thimble. NPR gets 40% of its revenue from the member stations. The member stations in turn get 5.8% of their funding from Federal, state, and local governments. In addition they get 10.1% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which is almost 100% federally funded. So 15.9% of the member station fees that NPR receives is taxpayer money which works out to be 6.4% of NPR’s budget. The local stations also get 13.6% of their money from “Universities”. It would be hard to find a university that doesn’t get some government funding and I wouldn’t even venture a guess if the percentage of government money from universities is significant or not.
A lie is an attempt to deceive. A lie can be purposely saying something that is not true or failing to provide relevant facts (lie by omission). The facts are that NPR directly and indirectly receives about 10% of their funding from the taxpayer. Whether the 3% claim is due to ignorance or an attempt to deceive I don’t know.
Bret,
To me the 3% money issue is smoke screen. I would not have a problem if the government were to stop all funding of all the arts if it were part of the end of funding for all businesses and all organizations.
Our tax dollars often go to people and institutions we would rather not see getting a dime of our money. We all have our lists of those we would rather not fund. But as long as some of those getting tax payer dollars are ones I wouldn’t give a dime to, those that I like should be allowed to continue to feed.
That is my only point.
Bret: “but is he (Newt Gingrich) on there as a respected guest expert or as that buffoonish idiot that represents those right wing morons?”
Yup, I guess you’re right.
Phan, how can possibly be honest with yourself and single out Fox and the Republicans as the only “dishonest liars”??? To say they lie and not mention the incredible falsehoods spread by the other side, from incest charges on the Palin family to Speaker Pelosi claiming unemployment creates jobs to charges by NCPR staff that Glenn Beck is inciting violence, how can you possibly hold the right to one standard and the left to another and be honest with yourself? Both sides tell their story from their own point of view and both “stretch” the truth everyday. To claim otherwise is just being dishonest with yourself and everyone else.
Part of the problem with the political discourse is the simplistic conservative/ liberal worldview. I would not consider Brooks to be conservative as it doesn’t appear he understands the fundamental conservative arguments against big government at all. I would put him what I would call the cocktail party class. It is a class of people that think the little folk are too stupid to know what is good for them. This is nowhere more evident than in Brooks column “Tea Party Teens”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
In this article Brooks portraits the Tea Party as emotionally driven at odds with the “educated class”. Brooks, of course, views himself as part of the “educated class”.
Brooks also does not appear to get why conservatives want smaller government. In a recent article “The Paralysis of the State”. In this article he states:
He then goes on to say:
While he often takes pot shots at the failure of big government he fails to point out that the failures are an inevitable effect of big government. That big government inherently cannot be “nimble, tough-minded and effective”. That big government results in a concentration of power and subsequently is able to offer political favors of higher value to the highest bidder. That special interests will be the only ones that have the resources to buy those high value political favors. That expecting a political party that will “occasionally standing up to the excessive demands of” special interests is expecting a party composed of hypothetical humans that have never existed. Brooks is convenient as a “conservative” talking head. While he points out the symptomatic failures of liberal ideology he never seems to get to fundamental structural reason for those failures leading those with a liberal mind set to believe the conservative arguments are weak.
What is interesting when comparing NPR and FOX is that neither really covered what is turning out to be a strongly suspected Chinese ballistic missile test off our coast.
So we have many news sources Left and Right and in between, yet how much information are we really getting? It’s all pretty bad, I did learn looking at the CNN headlines right now; that Lindsey Lohan was being dropped from the Linda Lovelace film and the Pope may think Condoms are okay for prostitutes and another grisly murder of a family for our true crime fix.
Okay, Notinthevillage we get it. David Brooks is a conservative but not up to your high standards.
Mervel, I heard NPR cover the mystery missile. They got a quote from the military something like “we don’t know what it was or who’s it was but we know it wasn’t dangerous.”
There, I feel safer.
Mervel, go to many of the alternative news sources and blogs and you can find all sorts of information on what that MIGHT have been. 40% say it was a jet contrail, 40% say it was a multi-stage sea launched missile and 10% swear Elvis was flying it.
Apparently you don’t get it nor do you even attempt to address the merits of my arguments.
You may want to check out this guy take as he is an aeronautical engineer.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/hide-the-incline/#more-10829
I shutter everytime I use the remote to surf the channels and I have to pass over Fox Editorial Network. I consider myself a liberal consevative. Faux frequently publishes false information, then a day later retracts the error, apologizes etc, but the damage is done and cannot be corrected. Shirley Sherrod, a high-ranking black employee of the U.S.D.A resigned after remarks she made about race were distributed by conservative web sites and aired on Fox News, but they failed to tell the listeners that they’d taken the comment out of context, until later…..much later. I dispise liers, cheats and unethical people, Faux news fits these descriptors well.
A video clip of , the USDA’s