NPR shocked me, today

August 15th, 2012

I’m a daily listener to WPR and NPR. I’m used to their subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle liberal bias.

But, generic cialis cialis today, pilule I heard something on Morning Edition that shocked me.

In a news break, Renee Montagne said that the Romney campaign was upset because VP Biden said Romney/Ryan would” unchain Wall Street.”

And she stopped there; leaving the impression that the Republicans were upset that they were caught supporting Wall Street.

But that’s NOT what the Republican’s are upset about.

It was Biden following up the Wall Street comment by telling the largely African-American audience that the Republicans were going to “put you back in chains.”

By leaving out that pertinent fact, Montagne sanitized the ugliness of what Biden said and turned the incident into a de facto smear of Romney & Ryan.

Not cool, Ms. Montagne. Not cool at all.

Entry Filed under: Media,Observations,Politics

20 Comments Add your own

  • 1. BobG  |  August 15th, 2012 at 11:24 am

    If Biden didn’t say anything stupid at a speech, I would worry that he’d been replaced by a double.

  • 2. Dan  |  August 15th, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Why would you be shocked that NPR would sanitize the news in favor of Obama.
    Unless, it is sarcasm that I didn’t get.

  • 3. John Foust  |  August 16th, 2012 at 10:08 am

    I remember hearing it yesterday (must’ve been at 8) on WPR with both parts of Biden’s statement. It was the first time I’d heard it.

  • 4. Elliot  |  August 16th, 2012 at 10:33 am

    The did mention both parts in the recorded story. The incident I’m referring to was in a live news break. I find it hard to believe she did it on purpose (I really do think the national NPR crew works hard to come across as neutral in their tone), but even if it was inadvertent it was very misleading.

  • 5. John Foust  |  August 16th, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    So you knew the full news story mentioned both parts, but you left that out of your post. You’re an expert on bias, hmm?

  • 6. Roland Melnick  |  August 16th, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    So the question remains…is Joe Biden really this stupid or is he a much needed distraction taking people’s attention away from serious blunders like Obama’s “you didn’t build that” Socialistic disclosure?

  • 7. Elliot  |  August 16th, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Two things, John:

    1.) I didn’t know it was in the full news story until I went and listened to the Internet stream looking for the version I heard live.

    2.) Because the only thing I heard on the radio was her comment, it’s fair of me to only comment on what I heard.

  • 8. John Foust  |  August 16th, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    In other news, on-air talent skims the news print-out and composes a short version of the story for the teaser before the real newscast.

    Roland, tell me about all the things you benefit from, that you didn’t build.

  • 9. Roland Melnick  |  August 16th, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Well…the President says we all built everything, that no one person or group of people deserves the credit (or the profits) of any particular endeavor. So, apparently there isn’t anything I haven’t built.

  • 10. John Foust  |  August 17th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    On July 13, the president said “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have, that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

    Where’s the part that says you don’t get any credit or any profits?

  • 11. Dan  |  August 17th, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    “Where’s the part that says you don’t get any credit or any profits?”
    You answered your own question, John.

  • 12. John Foust  |  August 18th, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Are you a reading teacher, Dan?

  • 13. Roland Melnick  |  August 18th, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

    That’s as close as Obama will get. He’s watering down individual achievement…if you didn’t build that business of yours, what right do you have to its profits? What right do you have to take credit for its success when it was someone else, not you, who made that happen?

    If I’m wrong, then what exactly did he mean, John?

  • 14. John Foust  |  August 18th, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Do you think “that” means the roads and bridges and all the other pre-existing infrastructure, or do you choose the more GOP-satisfying denial of contextual English where “that” means the business?

    A second clue is the way he used “somebody” in reference to both “building roads and bridges” and “made that happen”. Do you see the parallelism?

    To my ear, Obama was making a rather mundane explanation of how we all benefit from pre-existing infrastructure (public or private, he didn’t say.)

    I understand why Republicans delight in imagining that Obama is diminishing individual achievement, but I don’t think he’s doing that. Where did he say you don’t deserve the profits of your business?

    Let me guess: you think Ron Johnson’s business didn’t benefit from someone else’s help, too.

  • 15. Roland Melnick  |  August 19th, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Contextual English? OK…so you prefer the Democrat version that holds up the virtue of union road and bridge builders while knocking the selfish businessmen without respect to the reality of where a majority of our dwindling tax base comes from.

    OK…so I’m taking a bit of license there…but not that much given the Democrat mantras these days.

    I see what you’re saying, John. But why is that “mundane message” one that Obama feels the need to convey? Even if Obama meant to say, “If you own a business, it was someone else who built the bridges and roads that carried your freight and brought customers to your doorstep”…(Maybe I should operate the teleprompter)…he is still seeking to diminish the achievements of that business owner/operator.

  • 16. Roland Melnick  |  August 19th, 2012 at 9:08 am

    “Where did he say you don’t deserve the profits of your business?”

    Every time he and every other Democrat or Occupier-type proclaims the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” while about half of the population doesn’t pay any Federal income tax at all.

  • 17. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2012 at 11:11 am

    If you’re in the mood for subtlety and complexity, you might step away from the buzz-phrases. Then you’d need to examine how the ultra-rich actually pay taxes, or not, or where they’re hiding their money, and how this affects the US economy and the world economy.

    You might also want to have a reasonable civil discussion about what you mean by “fair”. You might study why Federal tax deductions and exemptions were put in place, and who did it. You might examine the elaborate network of schemes used by the ultra-rich to avoid “paying taxes” or “evading fairness”, depending on how you look at it.

    Or you can just repeat the scary, skewed stat, or find other distractions to avoid reality.

    Look, a picture of Obama smoking a cigarette! Har-har!

    Or to put another ridiculous point on it, Romney must also be saying you don’t deserve the profits of your business, if he ever suggests any form of taxation.

  • 18. John Foust  |  August 19th, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Union road and bridge builders? What, now we’re talking about Ryan’s family business?

    Help me out here. Show me the swath of US politicians who actually disparage the not-quite-free-market capitalism we have today. They’re all out there praising small businesses, or any new business that arises in their district, and nearly all of them are chasing after pork to assist them regardless of whether they’re succeeding or failing.

    I don’t see the anti-free-enterprise sentiment you’re talking about. It’s just another GOP talking point du jour, designed to smear the President, and reinforce the notion that anyone who opposes a cut in the capital gains tax must be a raving Socialist.

    If elected officials decide they need to raise another $200,000, what’s more fair? Asking 1,000 low-income families to cough up an additional $200 in taxes, or asking the rare someone who’s made a few million this year to hand over another $200,000?

  • 19. Roland Melnick  |  August 21st, 2012 at 9:50 am

    So, what was the point of Obama’s “mundane message” and why did he choose to put out such a message?

  • 20. John Foust  |  August 21st, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    It’s the usual we’re-all-in-this-together argument for growth and maintenance of the state, isn’t it? It wasn’t Socialist rhetoric. It’s a hair’s-breadth from what the GOP politicians deliver, too.

    On the other side, you see so much trumpet-blowing about the self-made business-man, which plays well both to the business owner and the Joe The Plumber types who work for the Man but day-dream they could somehow become the Man.

    Obama was trying to remind us of all the public-funded infrastructure that benefits us all, whether you’re a worker moving up the ladder, or someone who wants to start a business, or someone who already owns a business. Who’s going to pay for all those nice roads and bridges?

    And that’s not even getting into all the subsidies to small business… discount rail sidings for RoJo, TIF districts, tech schools, SBA loans, tourism grants, etc.

    How do you get from there to “the richest should pay proportionally less”?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.