uggabugga





Sunday, November 12, 2006

NPR - Radio for conservatives:

Here is how the first 30 minutes of the second hour of NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday played out:
  • BLUE DOGS
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · Guest host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats. These centrists helped bring the Democrats to power in last week's elections and will influence the agenda as the new Congress takes the reigns. (5:48)
  • CONSERVATIVES
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · Host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, a conservative Republican. Over the last few years, Flake has criticized the party's leadership, especially its handling of recent GOP scandals and an explosion in congressional earmarks. (5:13)
  • SCHORR
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr discusses the elections and what they mean for the Republicans. (2:41)
  • UTAH
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · While the rest of the nation elected a new batch of politicians, Utah remained largely the same. Host Andrea Seabrook takes a brief look at the Beehive State. (1:22)
(The audio will be available at the NPR website by about mid-day today.)

Here is the lead-in commentary before the twin interviews with Matheson and Flake:
SEABROOK: Now that the balance of power has shifted in Congress, politicians from both parties are vowing to work together to get things done. And with moderate to conservative Democrats picking up a number of seats in the House, and many Republicans fed up with the direction of the party, there is at least a chance of bipartisan cooperation. With that in mind, I spoke with two prominent congressmen, one from each party.
You had to hear the NPR reports to believe them. Andrea Seabrook chatting it up with the co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition. She said:
I'm reminded of the fact that Nancy Pelosi's majority is, in fact going to be a majority, in part because of so many new Blue Dog Democrats.

One of the criticism that moderates of both parties have had in recent years of the Congress is that the leaders of both sides, Nancy Pelosi, Tom DeLay, are to the far extremes of their party.

How do you see Blue Dogs, moderate to conservative, pro defense, pro fiscal conservatism, these Democrats - how do see yourselves being led by a Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco? Many say she's the most liberal member of Congress, leading the Democrats.

There will be forty-four Blue Dogs, is that correct? The forty-four Blue Dogs could, in fact, swing the majority in the House of Representatives. Would the Blue Dogs consider voting with the Republicans - Republican bloc on a bill?
The interviewee, Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, helpfully noted that in his opinion:
The Blue Dogs are all Democrats. ... In terms of wearing the Democratic label, I think they're the true Democrats. ... I characterize Blue Dogs as true Democrats.
That was followed by an interview with a conservative Republican. After Dan Schorr's commentary, the fourth story was a pean to Utah's unchanging conservative politics! From the Utah segment:
SEABROOK: The Democratic tide that drenched America last week left one state as dry as an island in the stream. Utah. The beehive state. Whose politics after the midterms remain as red as the rock monuments in its national parks. ... What does this say about Utah? Not easily swayed by peer pressure? ... Whatever the reason, Utah politics remain rock-solid, and about as likely to go blue as thos same red rock monuments. And perhaps the rest of the nation should take heed. After all the lyrics to Utah's state song say "Utah getting bigger and better. Utah, always leading the way."
But that's not all! In the first half hour of Weekend Edition Sunday, what do we find?
  • NEO-CON VIEWPOINT
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · The Wednesday announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation may represent the first step in a new approach to the Iraq War. Host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Richard Perle, who has served as chairman of the Defense Department's Defense Policy Board during this administration and is seen as one of the architects of the Iraq War. (5:21)
There was this lovely exchange:
PERLE: I don't believe it's correct to say that his [Saddam's] ties to terrorists have been discredited. There were numerous links between Iraqi intelligence and various terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. Those have been documented, and I frequently hear people say there's no evidence. It's simply wrong. I've seen the evidence.

SEABROOK: But much of that evidence that I've heard other analysts say, on both sides of the aisle, from several different policy views, has in fact been discredited. That most people are saying now that Saddam Hussein didn't have any serious connections with terrorists.

PERLE: Well I simply think that's wrong. I've looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
Was there any time for a non-conservative viewpoint? Yes. One.
  • DEMOCRATS
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · To get the specifics on the Democrats' agenda, Weekend Edition's Andrea Seabrook spoke to Democratic Congressman George Miller of California - the man tapped by Nancy Pelosi to head up some of the party's most important policy initiatives. (4:15)
That's your NPR. In the weekend after the Democrats win both houses of Congress with an anti-war and progressive economic message, four conservative profiles, and one liberal one.

ADDENDUM: Who is Andrea Seabrook? She sounded like a complete idiot. Do NPR weekend anchors write their own script? Whoever set up the stories and the narrative was, literally, out of touch with reality. It sounded almost as if NPR had been taken over by Fox News Channel.



8 comments

Thank you! Please keep listening so we don't have to.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/12/2006 3:00 PM  

NPR shows multiple sides and people are complaining? Usually, Republicans are complaining that NPR is too liberal! NPR had multiple point of views - that, buy itself, is different for many media outlets.

Daniel Schorr is famously liberal - don't lump him in with the other folks on that particular show.

By Blogger Laurie Mann, at 11/12/2006 3:31 PM  

Dan Schorr is a tool. I remember being livid at his Bush-sucking commentary following 11/9 and the beginning of the war in Iraq, and wondered how in hell someone who had found himself on Nixon's hit list could possibly have turned into such bootlick for the Republicans. I'd have put it down to senility, but there was the odious Scott Simon and the rest of the NPR bunch doing the same thing.

They know who their paymasters were, are, and will be, and they've all sold out. That's why I stopped giving anything to PBS or NPR years ago. They can all go to hell for having aided and abetted in this disaster (which, despite the recent election, is hardly over).

By Anonymous Mike, at 11/13/2006 4:52 AM  

While she was busy aping his talking points, too bad Seabrook didn't mention that Utah was where Karl Rove's father left his family when he went to live openly as a gay man in Los Angeles.

By Anonymous jules, at 11/13/2006 8:32 AM  

I believe Seabrook used to be the congressional correspondent for NPR....maybe she still is.

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Seabrook

I was struck by how dopey and giggly she sounded, especially in the "lighter" parts of Saturday Edition. It was pretty embarassing imo.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/13/2006 9:37 PM  

what? no segments about how the left has to abandon their secular nature and reach out to fundies if they want to succeed?

-jello

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/21/2006 8:49 PM  

First visit to uggabugga--read blogs and comments--
My impression: Bitch, bitch, bitch...
Downsizing mere criticizing might prove best tweak to critique.

By Anonymous PB, at 11/25/2006 3:40 AM  

ANDREA SEABROOK IS AN IDIOT! Say it loud and clear! She was, she is, she will be. One of my favorite displays of her idiocy was when she concluded a story on astronomy with the comment "for all AstroLOGICAL things considered, this is Andrea Seabrook." Clearly she doesn't have a clue of the difference between astroNOMY and astroLOGY.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/31/2008 7:47 PM  

Post a Comment