If you want serious media criticism, you have to look to the independents, not to the mainstream media.
A great example is the weekly radio show CounterSpin[1], from the media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).
A great example is the weekly radio show CounterSpin[1], from the media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting).
Thankfully, I don't have to choose, and so can enjoy FAIR's podcast while augmenting it with other sources. Thanks for sharing that; I had no idea they had a podcast.
While NPR is nothing if not mainstream.
But, yes, everyone has an ideology, it is true. Even people on NPR. Even those with the most mainstream ideologies, where you don't even notice it's an ideology because it's just the status quo -- that's an ideology too.
If you think FAIR's analysis is biased by their ideology, that may be. (And to show that about someone requires, well, showing it, not just showing that they have an ideology, as everyone does)
But it seems a semantic stretch to claim they are not 'independent' because they are 'ideologically dependent on the progressive left' -- "ideologically dependent", what does that even mean?
(For what it's worth: that ideology is also my ideology).
And I think most shows on NPR also cater to an audience with a specific ideology, and are less likely to present analyses that challenge that ideology. That ideology in the case of NPR, is just a status quo liberal ideology so mainstream that it appears invisible.
I do agree that FAIR could be less biased in their analytical perspective though, sometimes.
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
Charles Seife's "Edge" 2013 essay "Capture" http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23674
NPR's cousin PBS here, but I'd argue the same rationale holds: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12118/pbs-killed-wiscons...
But NPR has been showing a bias to my mind over the past 15 years or so more of timidity than ideology. There are places it simply won't go, questions it won't ask, and fire to which it blatently refuses to put the feet of recalcitrant, evasive, and often simply lying interview subjects (I witnessed a case of this with the coal industry shill organization "Institute for Energy Research" on the KQED Forum program last week). Perhaps simply asking the same question 2-3 times (and having the other side freely answer the same question) is enough, but I am somewhat fond of the (former, if not current) BBC "hard talk" tactic of asking deliberately pointed questions and highlighting evasions. NPR simply won't go there.
Noam Chomsky has also noted that he's been explicitly censored on multiple occasions (he's also very, very rarely given time on the network's flagship programs).
So, while I catch OTM more often than I do FAIR, I appreciate both views.
And with the Snowden / Greenwald reporting, I've also added The Guardian to my list of must-read news sites.