Yes free speech is wonderful, give a read to the rest of the Bill of Rights and reflect on how they enter into the freedom of speech. And then reflect that the Constitution and BOR are only pieces of paper, the meaning they have is within the People they were written down for. You don't get to have them for free, there is a risk involved in having freedom, so forget your namby pamby ideas about giving up this or that in the name of being "safe." GWB&Co certainly have no problem with that idea...

As is too often the case, news media, including NPR, did not do their jobs. It would take about 1 minute for a reporter to figure out that Kerry was talking about Shrub, not US troops in Iraq. they didn't take the time - or didn't want to.

It was the media itself that crucified Howard Dean by playing ad nauseum a mis-miked version of "the scream" that ended Dean's chances.

And still we hear about the "liberal media."

NPR does some good stuff that the commercial networks don't, but they are far from perfect journalists. this is especially true when the smell of war is in the air. NPR falls into line as fast as does Fox News. And don't get me started on coverage of the Middle East.

OPB radio does carry some progressive programming that NPR stations usually don't, reflecting the more progressive viewers in Oregon. I'm sure they love that stuff in Baker.

I'm sorry I just can't do the Air America thing. For one thing we don't get it here, and for another I can't stand the commercials. They're worse than OPB on a pledge drive. At least with OPB you know where the money comes from. Also, although public broadcasting may have become a haven for a libral voice in a market controlled by a bunch of rich conservative scum, that dosn't mean it's a libral network, and it shouldn't have to be. However, you have to admit it's far more fair and balanced than many "clear" channels I could name.

You don't get to have them for free Chuck Butcher

Yes you do. Its called a birthright. Keeping them is a different story with this administration.

NPR is as close to a honest reporting as we have today. With that said, it is terrible. They are unwilling to speak-up and do the dirty work that journalists are supposed to do. They play the fence-sitting game. Mug-Wumps use to be the given name for them. I hoped when the Neo-Con left PBS the network would return to the days of old, it never happened. Daniel Shore has now become a professor of journalism in the PBS mind and he ain't never gonna rock the boat. I was never a Shore fan, and I think PBS should be more open to the David Sirota type journalism. At least take a page from "The Guardian".

Shortly after the Gingrich revolution, NPR added Vin Weber as a commentator. Weber was a former congressman from Minnesota who had been one of Gingrich's leading political strategists in the House. He proceeded to provide spin to what was happening in the House. Rarely, if ever, was anyone reminded that this guy was commenting on the results of his own work. They were pandering to their new bosses, government radio at work.

NPR is as close to a honest reporting as we have today.

I think this is the most dangerous aspect of NPR, people believe it is somehow immune to the same pack journalism of the other "news" media. No one has any illusions that they are informed by simply listening to Fox or CNN or CBS, but they do believe they can stay well-informed listening to NPR. NPR provides you with a window into the conventional wisdom of Washington DC. Frankly, we would all be better off if it just disappeared and public radio stations had to find other sources of national and international news.

Todd, My experience with NPR is almost identical to yours. I was an avid listener for over 20 years. That ended when I started hearing their reporters and comentators repeating verbatum the same catch phrases and talking points that could be heard on any of the corporate media. I believe they have lost their integrity. I listen to Thom Hartman in the AM and get most of my news off the internet where I can truly get all sides of a story and all things are considered.

I drive a company vehicle about 50 miles every morning. I don't have sattelite radio so for years I have listened to NPR. That is, I used to listen to NPR every morning until I finally gave up after the 2004 election. I got tired of cussing at them out of futility. Luckily, for most of the trip I can pick up KPOJ out of Portland. The other part of the trip I listen to an "oldies" station. Don't think I miss a thing by tuning out NPR, and they probably don't miss my $5 a month "donation" either.

I recollect a study within the last year or so that indicated rather strongly that PBS Newshour and NPR were far and away the most balanced news sources. There's a ton of great programming available on NPR, including Marketplace, PRI, Talk of the Nation as well as all those wonderful weekend shows. Prairie Home Companion is flat out a national treasure.

Baby/bathwater syndrome going on here, I fear. Step back & relax.

Here are some articles from the excellent media watchdog, FAIR, about NPR and public TV:

How Public Is Public Radio?

NPR's One-Sided "Liberal Media" Debate

NPR Continues Distortion on Mideast "Calm"

NPR's "Extremists"

For NPR, Violence Is Calm if It’s Violence Against Palestinians

Study of NPR's Coverage of Deaths in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Are You on the NewsHour’s Guestlist?

Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour

Fortunately for Democrats everywhere, I think that this incident actually served the very useful purpose of ending John Kerry's presidential aspirations for 2008.

We can dream. In retrospect, the near-univeral loathing Kerry enjoys from veterans of all political backgrounds suggests he may have been the only Democratic candidate in '04 who would have lost to Bush.

Hopefully this latest shot in the foot will hobble him for the next campaign.

"Here are some articles from the excellent media watchdog, FAIR, about NPR and public TV:

The most hilarious, wicked and even deadly assault on the Newshour was years back by Alexander Cockburn (when the show was co-hosted, a difference with little distinction) ... find that & roar. Meanwhile, continue the assaults on NPR and PBS and find yourself -- and me -- a lot poorer if they become less or completely de- funded. I hate to think of a kid without Mr. Rogers or me without Masterpiece Theatre ... or NPR .... its worst incarnation is better than the best elsewhere.

IMO. But it's a trifle odd to hear this place -- of all places -- sounding like a den of radically iniquitous lefties.

. I hate to think of a kid without Mr. Rogers or me without Masterpiece Theatre ... or NPR .... its worst incarnation is better than the best elsewhere.

I know this is radical. But let me suggest that you have been totally brainwashed by watching too much television. There really is nothing socially redeeming about Masterpiece Theatre and kids would be better off learning to use their imaginations to entertain themselves by playing than by watching Mr. Rogers or any other television program. They might not grow up to appreciate Masterpiece Theatre but ...

But perhaps most important, is that you have come to believe that what is essentially another version of the same conservative message is actually its alternative.

What a neoliberal attitude..

NPR is good to listen to in the mornings because the span or breadth of their original stories and reviews is not bad and is usually always accurate, if occasionally coming up short on content. The underlings do a better job than the main commentators with making more insightful political commentary.

With regards to freedom of the press worldwide, the United States dropped more than 20 spots, to 44th place, mainly because of judicial action that was "undermining the privacy of journalistic sources."

Now the US trails El Salvador but is just ahead of Cuba.

Enough said.

Barnhart in a 60 second radio ad: "I just HATE listening to people who are so stupid that they disagree with me!!!! Change that station!!" Followed by 45 seconds of a shrill two year old throwing a tantrum.

npr doesn't think very hard about its news reporting -- another example is that if random republicans say one thing and 100% of scientists say another about science, clearly they should get equal air time. that's changing, but it wasn't fast enough to save us from the last horrifying six years of republican rule.

but opb seems to do some careful reporting, and i hope historians don't forget ira glass when they write this era up. lately, i'm up in the air about giving money to opb because some of it goes to support the tremendously uncritical reporting by npr that helped get us this iraq disaster, among other delights.

Of course, the great Fred Rogers did not work for NPR, or for any news and public affairs program on public TV.

Sesame Street is darn good TV as well.

Mr Rogers was one of the greatest living human beings of our time.

A regular Ghandi or Mother Teresa. There are literally millions of people out there that are actually decent, caring human beings instead of just playing one on TV. They demonstrate it by actually contributing in the world.

Sesame Street is great if you want to promote attention deficit disorder. The problem is that liberals, like most Americans, can't really distinguish between reality and television. They sort of intellectually know that the people they watch are acting, but it doesn't really matter to them. The suspension of disbelief is permanent, continuing even after the show is over.

So that's the problem, anonymous. I'm glad you let us all know that.

Television is used as a tool of manipulation. I don't think Sesame Street or the departed Mr. Rogers are part of that problem. I'd look to the news divisions for the real agents of damage.

"There are literally millions of people out there that are actually decent, caring human beings instead of just playing one on TV. They demonstrate it by actually contributing in the world."

You've got some learnin' about Fred Rogers to do, ma'am. And about me. I may well watch less TV than anyone you know. Perhaps you should get into the real world yourself. Abandon a presumption or two. Hear a voice that isn't your own inside your head. Like they say, what's scary ain't what you know, it's what you know that ain't so.

"real life is generally a better place to be than tv, but Mr Rogers is the exception to that rule. few of us know someone like Fred Rogers -- he was a rare human being -- so having him on tv once a day was a blessing."

Beautiful little paean, Mr. Barnhart. Thank you.

unpleasant attacks that have nothing to do with NPR removed

I don't think Sesame Street or the departed Mr. Rogers are part of that problem.

Of course they are. They train parents and kids to sit in front of a television, imagining that the experience is good for them both.

I may well watch less TV than anyone you know.

I doubt that. In the real world, there are actually people who don't watch television at all.

In the real world, outside the media, John Kerry never said anything at all about the troops in Iraq or anyplace else.

In the real world, outside the media, there never were any weapons of mass destruction.

In the real world, outside the media, there is no war on terror and no significant terrorist threat.

In the real world, outside the media, Fred Rogers was an actor and television personality just like Oprah.

Perhaps you should get into the real world yourself.

I suppose I should watch more television, but I just can't find the time. Too busy blogging ...

anonymous,

You list several distortions of reality repeated by the news media. You conflate Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers with these, which I think is silly. Those stories were featured in radio and print journalism as much as they were on TV. Should we teach our children to avoid all journalism and all educational and entertainment media as well? That seems a bit extreme, and not likely to help people distinguish truth from propaganda.

I watched a boatload of TV as a child, and I'm about as skeptical of received truth as you are likely to find.

You conflate Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers with these, which I think is silly. Those stories were featured in radio and print journalism as much as they were on TV.

I think most print and radio news covers the "reality" people see on television. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers are part of training people to accept emotionally what they see on TV at face value whether they accept it intellectually or not. TA is convinced the Fred Rogers he saw on television is the real person despite the fact he knows intellectually that each show was carefully staged and scripted.

I watched a boatload of TV as a child, and I'm about as skeptical of received truth as you are likely to find.

Tom, You think you are skeptical, but you might be surprised what happens when you are no longer subjected to the bombardment of emotional manipulation television and, to a lesser extent, radio delivers. Just take a look at the emotional investment TA has not in the Mr. Rogers television character, but in that television show character reflecting an underlying goodness in the person.

anonymous,

You seem to be suggesting that fiction leads to an inability to perceive reality. I don't accept that. Some works of fiction, written or audio/visual, can help one understand reality. Some of the most fanciful are the best teachers.

Actually, I've heard many interviews with Fred Rodgers, and read some of his writing. He was a more intelligent, compassionate, and insightful person than was his TV character. I remember as a teen loathing Mr. Rodgers as so uncool. As an adult, I realized Rodgers' genius at understanding and communicating with children.

You seem to be suggesting that fiction leads to an inability to perceive reality.

Not at all. Theatre requires suspension of disbelief other wise we would be thinking of the actors as actors rather than the characters they play. The problem is not the willing suspension of disbelief, its that watching television leads people to make that suspension permanent. It blurs the line between reality and fiction to the point that eventually people lose track of it entirely. They start to believe the actors are their characters.

Actually, I've heard many interviews with Fred Rodgers, and read some of his writing. He was a more intelligent, compassionate, and insightful person than was his TV character.

And this demonstrates what? It seems to me again you are conflating what you have seen on television and read with the person themselves. Whether Fred Rogers was or wasn't an intelligent, compassionate, and insightful person, he certainly played one on television.

But that clearly is not enough for some people. Its not enough that he successfully portrayed that character. It is important that he actually be that person he portrayed. And its important because television is reality, not fiction, not theatre.

We have gotten a long way off NPR and its news. But the same suspension of disbelief is there for the news. People are convinced that their emotions are not being manipulated, that it is the objective reality they are reacting to rather than carefully orchestrated theatre. And most of that manipulation is relatively harmless, its the same manipulation that any movie director uses to build interest. Of course some of it is not so harmless, where the goal is to inflame and arouse particular passions.

anonymous,

I'd like to see some polling, focus group results, or psychological and sociological studies that back up your contentions.

I'd like to see some polling, focus group results, or psychological and sociological studies that back up your contentions.

I have none. Its just my own observations. But as you can observe for yourself here there is a lot an anecdotal evidence that some people at least can't distinguish Mr. Rogers from Fred Rogers and that they don't want to.

Outstanding article, T.A.!

BOHICA, I'm sorry to disagree with you, it may be a birthright, but it isn't for free, it entails some real and serious risks, they come with it and if you want freedom, then you accept paying with those risks.

Anonymous" is the only person here who doesn't seem to understand the relationship of Mr. Rogers to Fred Rogers.

Or the only one who is skeptical that it is any different than the relationship between John Wayne and the character he played.

Mr. Rogers is a character that grew out of the life and work of Fred Rogers. Fred Rogers became Mr. Rogers on TV for a purpose that had a great deal to do with who Fred Rogers was.

Perhaps. But why is that important to anyone? His show was what it was. Suppose he is just an actor - would it change the value of the show? Of course it would for those who need to believe that Mr. Rogers is not simply a television program with a creative team and actors that developed a script, characters and staging. And then marketed it to parents.

To be clear, if Fred Rogers was the creative genius behind Mr. Rogers, then he deserves credit for that. If someone wants to make the case the Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being that is fine. But that he played one on television is not really evidence for that.

Things don't become context-free just because they happen on television. <?i>

Of course they do, just as they do in any theatre. Garrison Keillor is not the guy he plays on his radio show. Nor does his show require him to be.

Wasn't it Meryl Streep, Sally Fields and Sissy Spacek who testified before congress in the 1970's or 80's on the farm crisis? Their only connection to the problem was that they had all recently played farm wives in the movies.

It's a particularly effective means of communication that gets used for communicating many different kinds of things.

It is a particularly effective means of creating emotional responses. Which makes it very effective theatre and good for advertising products and building brand identification. It actually doesn't communicate information or reasoned argument very well at all. But perhaps most importantly, as demonstrated here, people are very committed to their emotional responses regardless of whether the information supports them or not.

Mr. Rogers wasn't an actor, he's really like that. Bill Cosby really is a wonderful father. John Wayne really was a brave, patriotic American hero. And don't tell anyone the contrary.

BTW -

Fred Rogers got into television as a floor manager of the "Hit Parade" and "The Kate Smith Hour". He worked as a pupiteer and then launched a public television show called the "Children's Corner" where, accorind to the biographies, he developed many of the characters that are part of the Mr. Rogers show. It was only then that he started taking child development courses and went to the seminary.

It would be more accurate to say that his interest in children grew out of his experience with television than the television show grew out of his experience with children.

<h2>None of which changes his accomplishments or his television shows.</h2>