Media Bias? NPR = National Progressive Radio? Well, that’s what I heard!

We continue to hear from the strains of Right Wing Hate Radio programming to the musings in conservative rags such as the Washington Times that the media has a Liberal Bias to the stories they cover.  

The Neo-Con’s whine and cry and complain that the New York Times (to a conservative, synonymous with George Soros’ personal newspaper), CNN, The Washington Post, USA Today, BBC News, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and on and on, are nothing more than the mouthpieces of the dangerous liberal movement in our country!  The Wingnut set decries these media outlets for only giving us one side, TEH LIBERAL SIDE, of any story.

Still rolling on here in our quest to find the liberal bias in the so-called Liberal Media outlets.  We’ve been to The Peoples Republic of CNN, we have viewed the writings in The George Soros New York Times and lastly we sailed across the great Atlantic divide to take on the DNC-BBC right there in jolly-old-England.

So far, ….nothing!  Not unlike weapons of mass destrcution in Iraq, no liberal bias was found.  How can that be?!?

Today we will go where NO KONSERVATIVE has gone before and have a look at the most hated of Liberal News Outlets, NPR (aka National Public Progressive Radio).

The wingers hate this news outlet more than any other, due to the fact that not only does some of THEIR tax money go into paying for NPR, but NPR to them is the one place on radio that everyone can access talk radio without having to listenen to Right Wing Hate Radio.  It really pisses them off!

Todays story, From NPR:

Candidates Strongly Differ on How to Tax the Rich

On the campaign trail this week, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain have focused on the economy, including their tax proposals.

According to an independent analysis of their plans by the Tax Policy Center in Washington, both would cut taxes overall. The analysis concludes that McCain’s tax cuts would primarily go to high-income Americans, while Obama’s would favor low- and middle-income households.

A big chunk of the tax-cutting done by both McCain and Obama would result from simply continuing President Bush’s big tax cuts – which would otherwise expire at the end of 2010. McCain would extend them for everyone. Obama would extend them only for households making less than $250,000 a year.

Alrighty, then.  Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are focusing on economics stuff.  Check!

The independent, non partisan Tax Policy Center sez both Senator’s plans would cut taxes overall.  Check!

McCain’s tax cut’s will go mostly to high-income earners.  Obama’s tax cut’s will go mostly to low and middle income earners.  Check!

Sounds like just the facts, Ma’am.  Nothing to complain about here.

Let’s move on.

If you’re among the richest Americans, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, the difference between McCain or Obama in the White House could be stark. Len Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says that under McCain, those rich taxpayers would, on average, get a $270,000 tax cut from McCain, but with Obama in the White House, they’d face a $700,000 increase in their tax bill. So if you’re rich, you could see nearly a million-dollar swing in your tax bill, depending on who wins the election.

Burman says a big share of McCain’s tax cuts for the wealthy come from his proposal to cut corporate income taxes, which would benefit people who own stocks. Speaking to a small-business association in Washington this week, McCain portrayed that corporate tax cut as a job creator. McCain said he would reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate “from the second-highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners.” Doing so, he said, would keep “businesses and jobs in this country.” McCain also proposed faster depreciation for business equipment and said he wants to increase the standard deduction for dependents by two-thirds.

YIKES!  The top 1/10th of 1% of America’s most wealthy would receive further tax savings from McCain’s plan, but would have to pay nearly $1,000,000.00 extra under Obama’s plan!!  

From CBS/AP – September 2007

Forbes’ Richest List Drops 82 Billionaires

A billion dollars just doesn’t go as far as it used to.

What’s different about this year’s Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest Americans, reports CBS News correspondent Dan Raviv (audio), is that, for the first time, $1 billion isn’t enough. You need $1.3 billion.

“For the first time in history, we’re leaving billionaires behind,” magazine associated editor Matthew Miller said. “There are 82 American billionaires who do not make the Forbes 400 this year.”

Collectively, the people who made the rankings released Thursday are worth $1.54 trillion, compared with $1.25 trillion last year.

I just wanted to put that whole issue into perspective.  Considering a BILLION equals 1000 MILLION, that doesn’t seem so much, now does it?

Still, nothing biased about the reporting.  Purely straight reporting of the issues by NPR.


While McCain’s tax plan focuses on growth, Obama’s tax plan places its priority on reducing income inequality. “The share of [U.S.] income going to the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of the population has grown to almost unprecedented levels in the past 20 years,” Burman says. Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent has had very modest income growth.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has made clear he wants to close that income gap. Obama has called for ending “the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy” and proposed “tax breaks [for] middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them.”

Among Obama’s proposals is a tax credit of up to $1,000 for two-earner couples and $500 for individuals to offset their Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Obama would also expand the earned income tax credit to aid low-income workers.

More perspective.  One Million tax hike vs. One Thousand in tax credits.  Again, Billion = 1000 Million.  I think, dear reader, that you can do the math from here, nes’t pas?


Dammit!  Again with the facts!  Where are the personal insights of the reporter?  Why don’t I see any inkling of steering people to come to the conclusion that NPR has set us up, Liberally speaking, to come to?

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHH!  I mean, um, gee.  Curses, foiled again!

Tune back in on Wednesday morning, Saaame Liberal Time! Saaame Liberal Blog! to see what we may find then….  



x-posted at EENRblog


Skip to comment form

    • brobin on June 16, 2008 at 15:21

    Not a liberally biased news story yet.  Sure, some fluff in a couple of the stories (Peoples Republic of CNN and The George Soros’ New York Times), but DNC-BBC and National Progressive Radio were mostly straight forward news reports of the issues.


    • Edger on June 16, 2008 at 16:48

    So, ummm… there’d be less crumbs to “trickle down”, you mean?

    Sounds like a librul, commie pinko, terrist lovin’ plan if I ever heard one.

    Why does Obama hate America? He wouldn’t even be here if we hadn’t brought his ancestors over here.

  1. I was a Luddite who listened daily to NPR from about 1996 to  2000. I listened and listened and became so agitated with their elitist Wall Street version of what was going on, i learned to use the computer and found that the worst of lies are portrayed and cloaked in intellectualism. NPR the station that booted Bill Moyers, that featured Juan Williams (now a Fox dude)the station that brought us all the neocons from Brooks to Crystal.

    They told me how out of sync I was, how our entitled life styles were threatened, how terrorists are going to get us, how soccer moms and fundamentalists were just the Heartland and us ‘liberals’ were traitors. They lauded Clinton’s tax ‘reforms’ on welfare queens they cheered Rummsey, they are not in any way liberal progressive or even  balanced. Sorry I can’t at this point even watch Bill Moyers if he emanates from this cesspool. They are worse then Fox, Fox at least is what it is and NPR is a poser a network that is corporate and portrays itself as out of the fray while pumping the propaganda elitist style. NPR hides behind it’s so called liberalism or balance or whatever one calls bullshit these days.          

    • nocatz on June 17, 2008 at 20:23

    of Neal Conan talking to Kagan yesterday.  Kagan has books to sell.  It wasn’t so bad overall but Neal at one point asked Kagan about the ‘autocratic’ goverments of Sudan, Myanmar…..and……Venezuela.  I thought lumping Ven. with the other two was a little much.  Isn’t Chavez the darling of the left?

Comments have been disabled.