NPR is a place people should be able to go to for context and depth beyond what you normally get from the sound-bite driven mainstream broadcast media. Listeners go to NPR for that little something extra you don't get in broadcast and print/online media outlets. It's disappointing to see them take a pass on this. I hope it was more for concerns of space/time constraints rather than a deliberate, strategic omission.

 

Agreed. I'd be curious to listen to the segment. I wonder if it was a piece documenting the score and the big moments in the game, so to speak, or if was making an argument about the final tally while conveniently leaving out some relevant facts.

Clyde had asked earlier what the impetus was for this thread. Actually it had nothing to do with running up the score.

 

Yesterday, coming back to the office I was listening to NPR. I generally enjoy NPR. Don't necessarily agree with what I hear. But that's part of the reason I listen to NPR. Anyway, they were talking about President Obama's Executive Order dealing with illegal immigrants. Their DC correspondent mentioned several times that Romney stated months ago that he would veto the DREAM Act if he became President and it was passed by Congress. Which is factually correct, much like reporting CovCath scored in the last 30 seconds would be factually correct. Romney did state such. But the DC correspondent did not once mention that Romney said there was a lot of the proposed DREAM bill that he agreed with, but because there were some things he disagreed with he'd veto it if it was passed as currently proposed. I thought it was rather unfair reporting/commenting by the DC correspondent. No problem with saying Romney said he would veto the bill, but he should have added that Romney was supportive of much contained in the bill.

 

I wondered if I was being unfair in my assessment that the correspondent was being unfair. I was curious to know how others on here felt. If I had asked the question in the P&R forum if posters felt the correspondent was being unfair, it would quickly devolve in to partisanship. So I decided to mask the issue somewhat and ask it in the General forum with a football bent.

 

Sadly I expect politicians to distort their or their opponents' voting record ("Senator Smith voted against this bill", while technically correct but not explaining that the bill had all kinds of amendments hanging on it making it almost impossible for someone to vote for even if they agreed with the crux of the bill). I just don't expect NPR to give a technical fact without giving all the details (particularly on such an important issue). I will note that after the correspondent dropped off, some guy who I think was the Executive Director of some latino group holding a conference in Florida today, was asked how he felt about Romney's statement that he'd veto the DREAM Act if it landed on his desk. The guy responded with the realistic answer: we realize that politicians say things during a primary. We don't care what they say during the primary. We are more concerned what Romney will say now (Romney was to appear today at the conference as was President Obama).

 

I came away generally disappointed with the level of reporting/commentary by the NPR folks. What they said was not wrong, but it left out a lot of Romney's position on illegal immigrants being able to earn citizenship. Stuff that might have appealled to those in favor of such happening. Someone listening but not familiar with Romney's stance could easily come to the conclusion that Romney was totally against illegals being able to earn citizenship which would be a false conclusion. Thought maybe my support of Romney was clouding my judgment. Wanted to get thoughts on the situation without politics driving those thoughts. Hope no one is upset that I wasn't totally forthright as I solicited thoughts and opinions. If so, I apologize.

 

I'd say "maybe" to them being disingenuous, biased, etc.

 

If the discussion was centered around the future existence of the Dream Act then I'd say it was fair. Why would it matter that Mr Romney likes part of it if he's declared it's gone on January 20, 2013? If the discussion centered around its future then nothing else really matters.

 

IF the discussion centered around the debate of its value then, yes, it should have been mentioned that Mr Romney sees good and bad.

 

We need context.

In that case, I hope Romney has such a huge lead he can take a knee.

 

:lol:

 

Even I thought that was funny.

I would have expected that from NBC, not NPR.

 

And to be fair, I would have expected it from Fox.

 

Jim nailed it: I have higher expectations from NPR. Don't get me wrong, all in all, they do a better job discussing most issues than the other news outlets. But I do detect slants in their segments at times. Nonetheless, it's still very much worth listening to.

And to be fair, I would have expected it from Fox.

 

Jim nailed it: I have higher expectations from NPR. Don't get me wrong, all in all, they do a better job discussing most issues than the other news outlets. But I do detect slants in their segments at times. Nonetheless, it's still very much worth listening to.

 

I would agree about FOX as well as the other network and cable networks. I used NBC due to their recent incident with Romney.

I'd say "maybe" to them being disingenuous, biased, etc.

 

If the discussion was centered around the future existence of the Dream Act then I'd say it was fair. Why would it matter that Mr Romney likes part of it if he's declared it's gone on January 20, 2013? If the discussion centered around its future then nothing else really matters.

 

IF the discussion centered around the debate of its value then, yes, it should have been mentioned that Mr Romney sees good and bad.

 

We need context.

 

 

I think if he likes part of it and has left open the idea that he would be ok with it with some changes should have been disclosed rather than just leave everyone with the impression that it's dead if Romney gets elected. If you're trying to provide all facts then I believe that should have been part of any discussion about it.

I think if he likes part of it and has left open the idea that he would be ok with it with some changes should have been disclosed rather than just leave everyone with the impression that it's dead if Romney gets elected. If you're trying to provide all facts then I believe that should have been part of any discussion about it.

 

Maybe. I would think one can infer that his declaration means it would have to change for him to not nix it day one.

I would agree about FOX as well as the other network and cable networks. I used NBC due to their recent incident with Romney.

 

What incident?

What incident?

 

Nevermind. Googled it. Edited video. I hate that.

 

Very Breitbart-ish.

Actually, Breitbart was very NBC-ish. They have quite a history of unprofessional reporting.

Actually, Breitbart was very NBC-ish. They have quite a history of unprofessional reporting.

 

Details? It's been a long time since I've watched network news.

Details? It's been a long time since I've watched network news.

 

Nope, just remember their name popping up a ton over the past 15 years or so for one thing or another.