On The Media

To Bob Garfield:

Regarding your comments on Bush, all I want to say to you is, THANK you, too!

Bravo! I really admire your courage and daring to put it out there. We've lived through eight years of what could be called a media black out. Hopefully, the next administration will be more enlightened. Really enjoyed it. Great work.

Okay, Bob, you're right. President Bush was being disingenuous when he "thanked" the White House Press Corps. In truth, President Bush regards the mainstream media as represented by, say, NPR, as biased and fundamentally hostile to him. You, of course, have proved him correct.

For your "years of service" covering the Bush Administration, I think you should THANK yourself.

Thanks, Charles. Well said. I love OTM's editorial prowess in having President Bush saying a decent "good-bye" to the mainstream press/media juxtaposed to two items highlighting the utter failure of the mainstream media (and in particular the Fourth Estate) in its basic mission and functions. Bob Garfield (and the press at large) will constantly blame "technology" and "change" for the failing newspapers. Who do they blame for the "success" of FOX news vis a vis all these other news entities? I am surprised that Garfield did not try to "blame" Bush for, again, the utter failure of newspapers, editors, and journalists to remain simple in their mission, objective in their fact-gathering, and not "socio-politically correct" in their biases. Turning themselves into propagandists has hastened the decline of the Fourth Estate. And Bush was more gracious than Garfield once again--and history will remember that! Thanks, Bob, for being the "proof in the pudding" once again! :)

Ooooops! I forgot something: As the President was gracious and down-to-earth, Bob Garfield was quite rude, crass and offensive--even transparently suggesting the "f-word" behind the "thank you" phrases--and even desperate to get in a "laundry list" of criticisms.... I am sure that President Bush is sooooooo worried about OTM's perspective and offensive coverage at this point, as the media fails in its proper job while the President rides off into the sunset knowing for two terms that he was absolutely right in "speaking over the (failing, biased) press" and directly to the American people! We are lucky to have people like George around this country, and unlucky to have people like Bob. However, I can say that there are at least two reasons that I listen to OTM religiously: 1. to sharpen myself as to the challenges we face when the mainstream media eliminates itself through its bad decisions and propagandizing; 2. prove the point of the biases liberally infused throughout most media. Thanks, Bob!

Brilliant...Too rarely do we hear such a prescient, incisive, and comprehensive portrayal of the contempt this administration has shown for our country's people, laws, and historical precedents. All the more important as the Bush Administration has regularly cloaked this contempt in the sheep's clothing of folksy good humor. Bravo!!!

Good Grief! Amazing how people like Bryan and Charles can still be so self-congratulatory for having put Bush in office, even amidst the ruins of our country left in Bush's wake. How unbelievably asinine!

Terrific and succinct synopsis of the Bush administration's contempt for the public's right to know what their government is doing.

Still, I have to say that the press itself too often gave the administration a free pass when they should have been constantly in Bush and Cheney's face demanding answers.

I can only hope that the "free press" will again begin to fulfill it's rightful role as the nation's watchdog, and that government will once again be held to account for its shenanigans and failures.

Just because the Bush administration made numerous mistakes in its realtions with the media, (some so obvious they seem beyond argument, others very much depending on the interest of the party involved), it seems ridiculous for Bob to present his views in such a childish and disrespectful way. Even granting that this is an op-ed, it was still so unbalanced as to be laughable. Of course the press never mischaracterized, lied about, or selectively reported the news regarding the Bush administration. Of course they never have a double standard with regard to liberals versus conservatives. Right.

In short, even though I disagree with OTM on these kinds of issues most of the time, I was always interested in hearing thoughtful analysis from the other side so as to keep my own views informed and balanced. And to that end I have always supported WNYC and OTM with a $500 donation for a few years running (I happen to believe in capitalism and free markets). But this adolescent diatribe finally convinced me that the show does not deserve my support, and therefore WYNC will not be receiving my check this year. Too bad too, because I know the donations will be in the tank this year with the economy the way it is, and I am fortunate to be in a business that is doing very well anyway.

I'll gladly make up for David's... ahem... "$500" by donating $500 myself for the first time ever... just for doing this story the exact way you did it.

By the way... MY business is NOT "doing very well anyway."

This rundown frightened me. We really enjoy flirting with dictatorship in this country.

You can't make this stuff up....Oh wait, they did. Eight years of spin and manipulation condensed into eight minutes. Thanks for a brilliant piece of compiling and editing.

Bravo Bob! Of course the Bush administration's treatment of the press was a two-way street. When the media continually cows and doesn't live it up to its duties we all lose.

Since this comments section has turned into a virtual Rorschach test on one's political leanings ("brilliant" in the view of those who have an unconcealed hatred of President Bush), let's move beyond the partisan trenches and ask a meta-question:

Is there to be found, anywhere on the NPR lineup, either as an independently-produced show or whithin NPR News, a conservative or right-wing corollary to Bob Garfield? Because Bob's co-host, Brooke Galdstone (wife of the Bush-hating Slate writer Fred Kaplan) is by no means any political balance. As we add "On the Media" to the tally of other innumerable left-leaning public radio programs, from the "serious" (Democracy Now!) to the "light" (Prairie Home Companion and This Ameircan Life), to Tavis Smiley, Terry Gross, Dan Schorr, and far too many others to count...

NPR is of course fully entitled to broadcast left-leaning content. No serious-minded person would suggest any form of "censorship." But what about "balance"? There is no semblance of a balance of views at NPR. Not a hint; not the slightest attempt, except within the most strained content of formal official NPR News brodcasts, which comprise only a small portion of a typical public radio station's broadcast day.

And after all of that, Bob Garfield, broadcasting from the comfort of the publicly-funded WNYC studio, has the nerve, the gall, the chutzpah, to call Ken Tomlinson a "propagandist."

Bob, my friend, your joking about the accusations of liberal bias at NPR have ceased to be funny anymore.

Bravo!

Charles Brown,

Instead of ranting about how the few shows available to the public which speak at least a little truth to power are so commie leftist america hating, try pointing out at least one specific which Bob Garfield got wrong in this radio piece.

And Please, point out specifically how he is wrong or inaccurate, and provide some sort of verifiable evidence, rather than just spouting off your so wholesome and constructive opinion.

Thanks!

Among the many specifics that Garfield got wrong; that the Bush Administration ran a program of "illegally wiretapping Americans without a warrant." That is a wholly and fundamentally untrue statement. The program, however, was indeed a top-secret program, being used to intercept and mine data from involving international calls, and has never been determined to have been illegal. President Bush rightly condemned those who illegally exposed it.

Bob Garfield chooses his targets in the area of illegal leaks. He obviously preferred the NYT "leak" to the "leak" of the name of Valerie Plame, but he got that story wrong as well; omitting entirely the part of the story in which Mrs. Plame Wilson's name had been leaked by Richard Armitage to Robert Novak, who published it, Garfield deliberately misled the NPR audience with the basically untrue allegation that Scooter Libby "revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to several journalists." The presumption that Garfield wanted to convey was the false presumption that fueled the Fitzgerald investigation and prosecution; that Plame's "cover" became publicly blown due to Libby. Which is, a lie.

Lastly, is the point I have already raised and which is perhaps the most outrageous: Bob Garfield, editorialist, attacking Ken Tomlinson as a "professional propagandist." What a nauseating bit of bombast from Garfield. Liberals like Bob Garfield seem to have no problem with the fact that NPR might have been headed up by a career Democratic political operative like Frank Mankeiwicz (Robert Kennedy press secretary, George McGovern campain manager, Democratic Party Chairman) but if a Republican is appointed to a position even more removed from editorial content, as Ken Tomlinson was as a Board Member of the CPB, it apparently sets Bob Garfield's teeth on edge. Which can only be a good thing.

I've answered your query, John Petesch. Now how about mine? What is the conservative corollary to "On the Media"? What is the conservative equivalent to "Democracy Now!"? Please don't say that NPR functions to counter so-called right-wing talk radio. That only proves my point, that NPR is slanted. Anyway, Air America (employing former NPR President Mankiewicz's son, by the way) is the designated "antidote" to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. NPR, because it is public, has the duty to provide balance. Rush Limbaugh has no such duty. Air America has no such duty. NPR does.

To Charles Brown:

Libby was convicted by a jury of lying about his leaks of Valerie Plame's name to three journalists. The fact that Novak got his info from Armitage is irrelevant.

As for my politics, I am a liberal/conservative pro-business/pro-regulation law-and-order globalist who believes in family, curiosity, critical thinking and the Bill of Rights. My analysis has no fixed ideology except honesty and truth. I don't despise the Bush administration because I am partisan; I am a member of no party. I despise them because they are scoundrels.

Excellent article! But I have to know, why did the press put up with it? Why did the press seem to be on the President's side? Why did the press NOT question the war in Iraq? Why did the press mostly sit idly by as the Bush Admistration led us down the path of ruin? What happened to the watchdog?

It's my opinion that the press failed us for the past 8 years. Failed in a big way.

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this unlabeled editorial on NPR today. Then I thought, "Oh, yeah. It's NPR. Of course it's ALL a Left-leaning, Bush-hating editorial."

I wonder: how on EARTH did Bush ever get the idea that the press was hostile to him, or that it had a "so-called" liberal bias? Hmm. This rather vile rant seems to have backed up his rather secretive approaches, rather than unmasks him for being unfair to a friendly media "just doing their job," as the rantor seems to be implying.

I've always said Bush is a wimpy, non-conservative who has failed to stand up for GOP principles out of fear of the press. This PATHETIC display of fawning over people who have shown contempt for him is example #45,387 of his wimpiness.

While I won't defend all of Bush's actions, whatever good points the ranter may have had is lost in the snide, hateful and dripping-with-contempt commentary - which even suggested at the end a big "F-U" to the president. Were I Bush, I'd probably have said "THANK" You right back to him and the rest of the carnivorous press corp.

I wish I could say, "I expect better from NPR" but I really don't. Sadly, because this could be a tremendous resource, but instead, it's a haven for partisan hackery that without fail, vilifies conservatives and deifies the Left.

I'm just glad, Bob, that we could clear up the part in which you "despise" the Bush Administration as "scoundrels."

I won't be holding my breath that you'll be as active in your vigilant non-partisan truth-seeking approach to the world's current media-propagandist "scoundrels": Kim Jong Il, Bashir Assad, Hugo Chavez, Al Jazeera, bin Laden and Zawahiri, Putin, Hamas, Hezbollah, Mugabe, FARC, Al Aqsa Martryrs Brigade, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Harakat ul-Ansar, Shining Path, etc., etc.

So many scoundrels, so little time, eh?

Bob, I didn't remember you mentioning that you "despised" the Bush Administration from the outset of your rant/editorial, nor for that matter did I hear it labeled as an editorial comment before or after it ran.

Or is the entire show understood to be an editorial, pandering to the Left? Mind you, I don't tune in all the time, so maybe it's just that.

There's a HUGE difference between media analysis (including getting BOTH sides to weigh in on whether Bush had abused his power or had been "mean" to the press) and outright editorializing, as you did. I'd hope you and other NPR commentators would learn to understand that.

Criticism, analysis and commentary -- what OTM is all about -- are by definition matters of opinion. Labeling an essay as commentary is like labeling rain as precipitation.

Stephen, in fairness to NPR and "On the Media", the program is prima facie understood to be a "viewpoint" program, for which the hosts and producers presumably take responsibility.

And, we can be sure that NPR, per se, distances itself editorially from particular programs like those of Mr. Garfield. Bob Garfield is not an NPR News reporter, they'd say. (Although here we are, debating on the NPR website!)

The question I come back to is this -- the typical talk-focused NPR station (as opposed to those precious few who play classical music and jazz when not broadcasting NPR morning and evening news) will feature programs like Terry Gross' Fresh Air, On the Media, News and Notes (to be cancelled?), Tavis Smiley and Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! They are all admitted , purposeful "viewpoint" programs with no conservative equivalent in the entire stable of public radio programming, be it from NPR News, NPR, PRI or APR.

I don't propose to silence Bob Garfield. I simply ask where is the programming balance?

What we see with NPR is rather transparent. A quasi-private, quasi-public agency like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with all of the same accountability and reliability. Liberal listeners adore what they hear on NPR, and support it with their tax-deductible donations. Liberal university administrators like the work of NPR, and gladly lend the university broadcasting infrastructure in many cases. It is an enclave. An echo chamber. And it is our national public radio network.

Sorry, Bob, but Howie Kurtz' CNN media critique show, for example, is one that clearly labels the hosts' opinions as such, and frankly, I respect the show, and him, far more for having guests on from BOTH political perspectives beforehand, giving equal time.

NPR has a history, if they let conservatives on at all, they must have several "counter-guests" on to "refute" their views. I suspect that's the case with this show. Then again, you didn't even try for balance here.

This all matters because we don't pay Kurtz' salary directly, but as a taxpayer, we pay yours. We should demand balance along with the commentary, which I certainly don't begrudge you to express, when it's labeled as such.

Then again, this "'THANK' you" implication was just vile and uncalled-for.

It's OK if the Bush faithful wish to pretend that what Bob Garfield delineates and documents about the departing administration's gruesome abuse of the media and us is conjecture that another conjecture could refute, as if every opinion were equally valid. Facts don't dissolve no matter how much one scorns them, and there are only so many ways those facts can be sanely interpreted. Everything Garfield says can be found on the front pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and other great newspapers, not to mention coverage by NPR. Each of these media organs has the entire paper trail for every claim Garfield makes. What Garfield says is already history. And there is no Memory Hole that can change it.

Jack Hettinger, where can we locate Ken Tomlinson's official registration as a "professional propagandist"? (A particularly inflammatory Bob Garfield charge, utterly devoid of the kind of documentation you are chirping about, in light of this discussion.)

Thank you Jack Hettinger!

I could not have responded better, and so you have saved me any more wasted time or typing.

And with that, it appears that both listener John Petesch, and program host Bob Garfield, and all of the other NPR faithful have abandoned any answer to the question, "Where, exactly, is the political balance to be found on a typical NPR station"?

Charles Brown: Have you ever of AM radio? If you turn to an AM radio talk show anywhere in this country you will hear nothing but your type of 'journalism.' You won't be challenged or educated.

NPR was started to provide a balance to the existing media networks. Most people believe that it does offer opposing views but if you choose to hear only the things that offend your delicate sensibilities you had best stick to AM radio and Fox News.

Try the Alex Jones show. I bet he's right up your alley!

re. Tomlinson: He came from Voice of America, an explicitiy chartered propaganda outlet. It's a remarkably even-handed one, but an organ of US policy and interests nonetheless.

And, of course, Bob, you appropriately called President Clinton a "scoundrel" when he left office??? President Bill Clinton: A married man, the Executive and Commander-in-Chief of our country, the biggest ethical and moral "role-model" that could exist...well, this President was grabbing gratuitous sexual favors from an employee (and an intern at that) and doing it INSIDE the White House administrative offices. All from an intern who was barely 20 years old (maybe 19--his daughter's age anyway!)??? And then LYING about it. And then PERJURING himself. And then being threatened with IMPEACHMENT. (Hmmmmm...was George Bush ever mentioned seriously as an impeachment candidate or as a perjurer in a courtroom? Why the double-standard, Bob? Bob? Was Clinton more or less a "scoundrel" than Bush? Did you treat them equally UNFAIRLY with a constantly running bias that is laughable it is so transparent?

Bryan, this program started in January 2001. I suggest you read Brooke's 'manifesto' to get an idea of what this program is about:

http://www.transom.org/guests/review/200403.review.gladstone.html

Mr. Cates, you are respectfully referred to Post #18. Thank you, sir, for taking that particular bait, and if you don't mind, I'd at least like to have my line and sinker back, please.

If NPR had been commissioned to serve as the left-wing counterweight to right-wing commercial radio, I think I'd be in court tommorrow to try to de-fund it.

But even NPR's administrators would deny, forcefully, that NPR is to be the antidote to private sector conservative media. They aren't honest enough to make that admission. They'd point out that NPR pre-dates The Rush Limbaugh Show by at least a couple of decades. "Talk radio" didn't much exist when public radio stations began broadcasting programming about classical music and great books.

But of course, radio is an intensely self-stratifying medium. Conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh because they like Rush and find NPR nauseating. Liberals do the obverse. It's just that Rush Limbaugh's syndication PAYS taxes and NPR ABSORBS taxes. (In the process, NPR develops a listenership of liberals to whom it caters, for more listener support.)

My point is that NPR ought to be politically neutral. Air America (often indistinguishable from NPR) is the vehicle for liberals to combat the percieved right-wing AM radio hegemony. Not NPR.

Charles Brown, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree here. Studies have proved that most people on the left of the political spectrum often find NPR to biased towards conservatives and most people on the right find it too liberal. I am reminded of Harry Truman's statement that he didn't give people hell, he told them the way things were and they thought it was hell.

You see bias, I see objective reporting. Sorry, I must leave now to listen to ultraliberal A Prairie Home Companion, where Garrison Keillor made yet another sarcastic comment about outgoing President Bush.

IMAGINE it! Imagine if any NPR personality or ANY news personality on a network ever said the numerous "THANK you" phrases that Bob Garfield uttered (thinly veiled as a profane gesture) towards President-elect Obama??? There would be a national outcry and heads would roll, possibly. Just another example of the basic problem here at NPR and OTM. Media people have been fired for LESS than what Garfield did....

Mr. Cates, laugh all you want; Garrison Keillor is a registered member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor. And, he's an unapologetic scold of the opposing party.

Again, not a reason to silence A Prairie Home Companion.

Just a reason to ask, what is the corollary, the conservative counterpart? Where might a public radio listener find any balance?

(A variety show is hardly a political hotbed worth worrying about. But for a station manager or fundraiser concerned with keeping a kind of ideological purity, it means something.)

And, it is less benign when one talks about other programs, interview programs in particular, in which six or seven separate editorial decisions might result in someone like a Ron Susskind being invited onto six or seven different NPR programs to flog his latest anti-Bush book. Thereby assuring a kind of on-air carpet-bombing of anti-Bush news.

Mr. Cates:

Dates, dates, dates...as if that excuses the behavior I am characterizing. As it was so eloquently put above, there are literally TONS of political "scoundrels" who have graced our presence, whether we go back 8 months or 8 years or 800 years, correct? Did Clinton leave office approximately 8 years ago? Was he labelled a "scoundrel" by OTM or NPR commentaries back then??? Was he? Or were they too busy already trying to label Bush that, perhaps? If OTM or Bob Garfield can address the words and language of FDR, Lincoln, and so on, in the course of their coverage of the media and politics--well then, shouldn't they offer Clinton and Bush equal treatment in the last 7 or 8 years? What is the big deal--a President that is a scoundrel is a scoundrel, right? Or does their "club" memberships determine whether or not they are so labelled by the media commentator or the Fourth Estate?

Oh, I almost forgot, Mr. Cates: I listen to OTM about 75% of Saturday mornings for the past 4 or 5 years. I am also a "former journalist". I think....I just think that I know what the show is about. And there have been dozens of OTM mornings I could easily have "sliced and diced" the way that Charles has--and others--above and in other places. I just remind myself that I do not contribute anymore (after ten years supporting NPR, circa 1981 to 1991), that it gives me a GREAT "debating" partner to rev me up on Saturday mornings (better than coffee sometimes, Bob), and that if you look around at the Fourth Estate and the mainstream media you will see they are sinking almost as fast--well, almost as fast as the Bush administration--in their "objectivity" and "balance". (By the way, Charles, they will NEVER answer you in the vein of any semblance of "balance" on our national public radio...never....but I praise you and thank you for sticking to your guns and asking that valuable question.)

But, hey--go back to the original premise by Bob Garfield--his thesis statement. Remember it? Yes, the laundry list of "everything that big, bad, old, masterful, super-human George W. did to the poor, old weak, honorable, honest, intelligent, dedicated, pure, objective press". Yes, George Bush--the guy that the press lambasted for 4+ years & made fun of as being so simple, such a puppet, so ignorant, such a bumpkin. But BobG claims that W. basically sort of victimized the poor press across the nation--had his way with them, outwitted them, buffaloed them, conned them--hey, W. sounds almost "all-powerful" in BG's intro. But which is it? A masterful Bush who "blacked out" the press, or the buffoon who couldn't get out a simple anecdote on occasion? You see, BG wants to have it BOTH ways--but reason tells us that you just can't do that and stay honest with yourself. The TRUTH--the plain old truth of the matter is that for the past few decades, germinating in the 60s, sprouting in the 70s, & blossoming in the 80s--the press, the former & venerable Fourth Estate et al., has simply & only gotten just what they have sowed for themselves; what they deserve. They lost most of the purity, simplicity, & honesty that George Bush has (for all his imperfections); they ceased to strive for objectivity & balance & respect & integrity & strength--and after that it's all downhill. Bush is just a couple asterisks in a society “mediated” by a decaying, formerly professional group of journalists & editors who have lost their way (much like public education & liberal post-secondary education have lost their way in this country). Nothing more, nothing less. That’s why, if you listen closely to Garfield's opening thesis statement, you will realize--if you're honest with yourself--that this piece is just hypocrisy & sour grapes, with a little BS mixed in for good measure...yes, exactly what passes for typical journalism today.

Oh, and Mr. Cates...perhaps YOU should go back and re-educate yourself on OTM history. OTM was "reborn" right at the very moment that "slick Willie" was finally leaving office (a nice parallel to our debate on this commentary piece) having disgraced himself and the country--he just couldn't leave well enough alone, it seems, judging from his last couple years in office.... But thanks for the tip, Mr. Cates.

To: John Petesch

Again, snarky sarcasm is childish and hardly constitutes an intelligent response. If you want to claim I am lying about my donation, then say so and tell me why you think so. I only made the comment about my business doing well because I suspected people like you would make sarcastic comments that I was using this as an excuse for not giving because I couldn't afford it. Hardly the case. My point is that sometimes it is enough to register a difference of opinion by making a comment on here, sending a letter to the editor, whatever is appropriate. In this case I felt my response needed to be stronger. I can support what I think is good work that has value for me, but this was not, and there have been other instances when Bob's comments are thick with unneeded sarcasm, disrespect and bias. The issues mentioned are not nearly as cut and dried as Bob makes them sound, and others have done a decent job of refuting some of the claims Bob makes. The courts have upheld the wiretapping of overseas calls (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWNhNWI3ZjRlNmVkZTA1YzNmYmNkMjBhYTMyZTFhMmQ=), no one was convicted for this. If Bob is going to use court results to substantiate his claims about Libby (although that is a red herring too, there is FAR more to this story), then he should be fair and admit that he is wrong on this because the courts said so. Can't have it both ways, Bob.

To: Bob Garfield

If you really believe you are a "...liberal/conservative pro-business/pro-regulation law-and-order globalist who believes in family, curiosity, critical thinking and the Bill of Rights. My analysis has no fixed ideology except honesty and truth.", then you really need to listen to yourself more. You are not getting the conservative, pro-business side of yourself across very well (read not at all). Maybe you are playing with semantics, I don't know. But the is NOTHING I have heard you report on in the 4 years I have been listening that remotely come across as you being anything other than fairly left of center as usually defined. I, of course, have no idea who you have voted for in any election, but I have to admit I would be shocked to find that you had ever voted for a conservative candidate. Really Bob, you have been in New York City too long. Live in the midwest awhile and you will see just how liberal you really are. I am just imagining your horrified reaction to that thought. Kind of proves the point, doesn't it?

I found this report refreshing and an important reminder of many incidents--like the 'Potemkin Village' press conferences that were forgotten.

But I can't believe that the great symbolic moment of the Bush Administration's relationship with the media was forgotten, namely being pelted by a shoe by a member of the Iraqi press!

You brilliant Bushies should be proud that 22 percent of the population in this country (1 percent worldwide) actually agrees with your views.

I'm sure you represent the very smartest the world has to offer, and we should all heed your magnificent intellects in these difficult times, as your politics have served us all so well over the last eight years.

Enjoy the world you have wrought! I'm sure your pleasure will be reflected in your job security and retirement accounts!

Bob,

Your summary of the Bush years is my favorite in any form of media. I think it is brilliant and this is one of the best OTM pieces in memory. THANK YOU for this, I will follow up with a donation to WNYC.

Well, all those things you list are true and the press let him get away with it and so I believe thank you is what meant, thank you for letting us give you the finger and get away with it!! I listened to nothing he said (turned off the sound or changed the channel) for eight years so I didn't listen to any of this buh-bye crap he spewed all this week either.

Why didn't you all call him on these over the years? Why wait until he leaves! It's like the kid you hides in the bushes and waits until the opposing team is out of stones and then throws his stone and runs away. It's too late OTM. You too let it happen.

It's about "thank"ing time. Kudos to Bob Garfield for finally setting the record straight on the Bush adm.'s chronically dishonest and abusive relationship to the media and the public at large. I wish it hadn't taken a full 8 years, and Bush literally on his way out the door, for someone in the mainstream media to finally call it just as it's been.

Yeah, it's me again. What can I say, I'm a slow thinker.

I have to add that with all this finger pointin--and I've done my share--with all this finger pointing and accusations it is the people who voted for this idiot (especially for a second term, go figure!) who are to blame because they and the Supreme Court and the GOP sleaze machine who played around with the voting system caused this fool to usurp the office of the President.

Bob Garfield is very much like other NPR program hosts (ie. Garrison Keilor) in his outright hatred for President Bush and all things and persons conservative. There is no journalistic balance in his blatantly slanted opinions, and they are nothing more than opinions. Opinions which should be labelled as such at the start of each one of his rants. Now that Mr. Obama will be our president, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Garfield is as critical and outspoken of him and his administration as he has been of President Bush during the entire 8 years of his presidency. Somehow I doubt it.

I hope that under Obama's administration, the lies that you pointed out in this piece are exposed on all news shows, all networks (FOX included) and soon. If there is any justice, Bush and deserving members of his administration will be prosecuted for their crimes, as well. I trust that President Obama's administration will respect the Fourth Estate and that it's dignity will be restored.

Thank you, Mr. Garfield!

Excellently stated, Bob! It still amazes me that there are folks out there who try to defend Bush's 8 year debacle. Harks back to a statement I once heard about Republicans: "There are 2 kinds: very, very rich or very, very stupid..."

Ignorance and arrogance have always been a deadly cocktail. George Bush's reign is a showcase illustration of this...

Keep up the good work.

To those who left comments defending Bush and his administration, calling Garfield "snarky" or "childish", I'd be curious to know if you are fans of O'Reilly and his ilk. I'm also curious if you have ever seen Bush flipping off the media (which he's done numerous times - documented). Do you not find this "childish"?

Do some independent research on Bush's claims in the adios speech...it was a lie-fest.

Yes Paul,

I'm sooooooooo sure Obama will provide just as many genuine opportunities for criticism as Bush, making it very reasonable that we should expect just as criticism of Obama as there was of Bush.... OH BROTHER!

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your summation of Bush's dealings with the press.

As an ESL teacher of adults, I voice my political opinion on occasion, and so have been asked just why I think Bush is a such a "disappointment". It is then I wish I had collected the unending news reports of his abuse of power, his betrayal of our welfare and our constitution, to list point by point, hammerlike - as you did- every malfeasance which we have suffered these 8 years.

Thank you for not pulling your punches. Aside from the F-U, I didn't think there was one insult... Just the facts, just the facts, which speak worlds.

Now kids..... One of the greatest attributes of the United States is the ability to write and speak our opinions. We all know that behind opinions there should be facts to support those opinions. And for every point there is a counter-point as we see demonstrated in our court rooms. So with respect to all, put forth your comments, discuss and disagree and remember to remain open minded. Our freedom to "Voice" should match our freedom to "Listen". Our desire to question should match our desire to educate.I enjoy and learn from all the comments and thanks!

Thank you (really) for pulling no punches in this piece. Right on.

An otherwise well-researched piece was diminished by vulgarity. This indicated lack of control of emotion, and therefore a lack of objectivity. It was unprofessional because your feelings toward Bush became part of the story.

Sixty posts now, and we see where public radio stands. There will probably never be a broadcast "counterpoint" to Bob Garfield anywhere on NPR, at any time.

And, as more than a few of the commenting listeners above have noted, those who are offended by NPR's one-sided political slant will voice their outrage (Bob Garfield rarely goes a month without sneering at all the cries of "NPR's liberal bias"), and the loyal liberals who adore NPR will support it with donations.

Local stations, responding to the directives of their donor lists, "keep it up" with a steady diet of Bob Garfields, Brooke Gladstones, Amy Goodmans, and contributions from NPR's "sister publication", Slate. (Slate's quadrennial poll of its staff, published online, was about 90% pro-Democrat in the last election. It was about the same in 2004, and only slightly less in 2000.)

And this is what is so offensive. An openly slanted, but government-supported, radio network.

I appreciated the commentary/essay this morning on Bush and the press. However, I wish Mr. Garfield had spoken about the by-and-large supine White House press corps. I felt fury time and again at the softball questioning with little follow-up and at the polite laughter which followed Bush's lame jokes. It's all water under the bridge now, but opportunities were lost, for reasons perhaps of "patriotism" following 9/11 or a certain lese-majeste.

Charles,

Get a life and get your facts straight.

Gingrich and the "Republican Revolution" saw to it that tax dollars no longer support Public Radio other than in a supervisory role.

You Republicans gutted the National Endowmnet for the Arts because you've been whining about liberal bias for decades, despite the fact that NPR and PRI represent the only Factual counterpoints in the nation to the GENUINELY BIASED corporate controlled media.

Thanks to your OVERLORDS, Public Radio is now funded almost exclusively by listener donations and corporate sponsors, and nothing can survive without catering to the desires of its fund-providing sole sponsors.

Obviously, therefore, Public Radio is providing EXACTLY the kind of coverage expected by those who are REALLY providing donations, not by those who just claim to donate in comment sections of websites.

So if you're so offended by REAL FACTS and those who speak at least a little truth to power, please patronize exclusively the 95% of the media which caters to conservative viewpoints and gives corrupting powers a pass. Leave the respectable 5% of the media to those who want out of the ECHO CHAMBER and instead expect integrity and truth from their news sources.

Thanks again!

From Wiki:

specifically:

"About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting."

John Petesch, I don't think you have any idea how wrong you are. Go to the WNYC home page; there, you can find their last annual report. You'll find that for the last reporting year, WNYC got about $11 million in donations. (Those donations were tax-deductible to the donors, under federal and New York state tax codes.) WNYC got another $11 million in underwriting fees; those coming from (also tax-exempt) charitable foundations and other institutional donors. Among the private-sector underwriters, you can bet that they too are looking for favorable tax treatment of their WNYC donations.

Then WNYC got several hundred thousand dollars in straight-up cash from governmental sources.

Add to that the fact that most NPR-affiliate stations operate within the tax-supported infrastructure of university campuses or other old public infrastructure. They, in many cases, get free studios, transmitters, communications gear, university support for staff, etc, etc.

I am always amused when we hear the old song-and-dance about how so litle public money goes to support NPR and how dependent your local NPR station is on "listeners like you." Nonsense. If government involvement were so little, then there should be no problem in systematically eliminating every indicia of governmental support for public broadcasting, right? But such a move would devastate public broadcasting. And I am not suggesting that it be done. Mine is the more moderate view, and an inarguable view -- that to the extent that NPR and all public, government-supported stations want to broadcast politically-oriented "newstalk", they ought to operate on a kind of fairness doctrine; precisely the kind of fairness doctrine that we rightly abandoned in the private sector.

John, there is also another suggested model for NPR:

Just quit it, with trying to be Air America Lite, or the counterweight to Rush Limbaugh. Stop it, with all of your politcal blather. We can get all the political blather we want from MSNBC, Air America, Salon, Slate, the NYT, WaPo, and a million other mostly-leftist-leaning news sources. Is there really a shortage of news in this country? Is there a shortage of pundits and bloggers like Bab Garfield? Just what the hell is NPR an "alternative" to anymore?

NPR could easily serve a very valuable "alternative" role. Give its audience something good and different to listen to. Brodcast classical music. And Jazz. And clutural programming. More Duke Ellington, and more Debussy, and no more Amy Goodman, who can just go and line up her next gig with Air America and get advertisers to pay for her programming.

Affiliates are NOT NPR and they can use anything their donating listeners demand to fill their airtime.

Also, WNYC will be one of the largest and best funded affiliates, and in no way represents the funding of the typical affiliate.

Again, no affiliate can survive without catering to the desires of its fund-providing sponsors.

Get your facts and arguments straight!

Click the "More Programs" link on the NPR home page... over 90 percent of their offerings are NOT news related.

For Mr. John Petesch (post #46): John, you stated: "You brilliant Bushies should be proud that 22 percent of the population in this country (1 percent worldwide) actually agrees with your views." THANK you, John! Ha! I absolutely ADORE that sort of response because it validates my point about...hmmmm...about an anti-Bushie.... You see, John, you are the type of character who is concerned primarily about who agrees with you and about what the polls say and about what is the "politically correct" way to think. I do not subscribe to that. I think for myself, John. If 99.99999999999% of the world disagreed with my opinion I would still hold onto it because I BELIEVE in it. And I believe in ideals, absolutes, right and wrong, TRUTH, and the value of my own culture and heritage. I live MY life in MY community and State and country. I do not need to worry about the values and opinions of a billion people who have DIFFERENT (not better or worse, but DIFFERENT) values, culture, rights and wrongs, governments, freedoms, etc. etc.--teh are DIFFERENT than I am, John. People like you can go around taking polls and worrying about what the other 80% or 99% think, John--and change with them. I will stick to what I think and what I learn for myself, ok? And who said I was a "Bushie"--whatever that is? I am reasoning and thinking and commenting and evaluating a crass, rude, dishonest, biased piece of journalism, not backing Bush. OK, John? Got that?

No John again you misunderstand -- I know the difference between WYNC and other affiliated public stations. In fact, the WNYC circumstance, with all of its lavish funding from the limousine liberals of New York City, might not be the best example. It is an exceptional case. Other, less-well-funded NPR affiliates in rural backwaters throughout the country are likely to be even more dependent on governmental funding, or university-allocated endowments.

If an NPR affiliate station thinks that it can boost listenership by broadcasting a daily lineup of shows like OTM, Democracy Now!, News and Notes, and Tavis Smiley, should it do that? You suggest that they should. You suggest that it makes their listeners happy, and they in turn give more money to the station. It becomes a liberal enclave, by liberals, for liberals, with liberal content. Just take the whole enterprise private, and sell liberal-aimed advertising if you want to cater to the audience. Leave my tax dollars, and the government's aegis, out of it

For me, the notion that one of my local public stations broadcasts OTM, and another broadcasts Democracy Now!, without any countervailing opinion, is as offensive to me as if there were a local station in your area, operating out of your local university, with public funding through grants and tax-deductible donations, hosting shows devoted to Ann Coulter and Bill Kristol.

I am soooo tired of hearing about the liberal mainstream media. The mainstream media, except possibly for listener-funded outlets like NPR, have a commercial bias, and they'll run any story as long as it promises ratings.

If the media were liberal, Clinton would not have been impeached (there wasn't any objective need to blow a minor impropriety out of proportion like that, but it made for lurid headlines). If the media were liberal, Bush would not have been president (the public would have heard more about his myriad failings and failures, but instead the media chose the tedious Gore-the-nerd-vs-Bush-the-regular-guy narrative). Also, remember that Obama's one major gaffe (the one about rural Americans clinging to guns and religion) was brought to us by the Huffington Post, an explicitly liberal outlet; they could easily have buried this inconvenient incident but went for the scoop instead.

Regardless of what Fox News says, balance does not mean having two hotheads with opposite viewpoints yell at each other. This segment did a great job of documenting eight years of official contempt for the media; any attempt at "balance" would have been a distortion of the administration's atrocious record.

I was surprised and delighted to hear this deviation from the usually soporific tone of NPR; after I heard it on the radio, I downloaded the podcast and listened to it again to make sure that I had heard correctly. My only criticism is that the segment seemed almost redundant now that the Bush presidency is over.

I didn't say you shouldn't stick to your opinions, I said:

You brilliant Bushies should be proud that 22 percent of the population in this country (1 percent worldwide) actually agrees with your views.

I'm sure you represent the very smartest the world has to offer, and we should all heed your magnificent intellects in these difficult times, as your politics have served us all so well over the last eight years.

Enjoy the world you have wrought! I'm sure your pleasure will be reflected in your job security and retirement accounts!

There he goes again!! I just love it [sic] when John Petesch goes and does something like opening his mouth (or keyboard, I guess) to call me (and other commentators) an "Overlord"!!! (Yes, I think he even capitalized it!) Toooooooooo funny! It just again proves the point of how rigid, "politically correct", and stereotypical most liberals have become in this country today! I am hardly an "Overlord", John! Ha! But if you really want to call me fantastical names like that, heck, let's just make a date with one another and see what happens...I could get used to someone calling me "Overlord" I think. Such an improvement over my 2 year old daughter calling me a "dufus"...and much purer entertainment and fun than Bob Garfield's laughable, petty name-calling (that takes so much away from the OTM program in general--even as biased as it is).

Your OVERLORDS are not you, dufus... they are those that manipulate people like you by making you think they have something in common with you while squeezing you for every dollar you have, and laughing about it all the way to the bank.

John Petesch simply does not understand tax write-offs and tax deductible contributions and what their true significance is. He also (apparently) does not understand that even if he was right (on the 2%, and he is not right), the POINT still is that NPR is PUBLICLY SUPPORTED, and therefore I firmly agree with Charles that they have an obligation to be balanced in their programming--and they are not. (On this following comment I do not expect others to agree, but I also happen to believe that all the newspapers and the news media should strive for objectivity and balance and more fact-finding and fact-presenting, no matter how un-glamourous that is. Bob Garfield likes the glamour and the drama too much--and he is an analyst and an opinion type anyway, so it is moot--bit if...IF...Bob Garfield was THAT hot and bothered about what big, bad OVERLORD President Bush was doing in the past 4 or so years, why is he not pursuing it through fact-finding and presenting of facts through the proper channels? If Bush was soooo bad or sooooo illegal or sooooo criminal or un-American, why not hammer him and PROVE it outright with a well-documented and well-presented piece (or a book) rather than this crass blip on the media screen?

Because of time constraints, Bob left out 50 or so grave misdeeds, stompings of the Constitution, and egregious lies that Bush committed.

Again, Garfield stands tall. You have my gratitude, Bob, for a courageous slam against this administration that almost brought down our democracy.

Here's another inarguable point: there is more (much more) ethnic and racial diversity on NPR than their is political diversity.

We can easily list shows that reflect NPR's desire to expand teh number of black and urban voices in its national and syndicated programming. NPR created the News and Notes program. NPR News hired Michelle Norris, whose husband was a Kerry campaign senior advisor and who may end up serving in the Obama Administration.

But can anybody identify a single program that is hosted with an explicit conservative agenda, the way that the Pacifica-produced Democracy Now! has an explicit "progressive" agenda? Can anyone identify a single serious way in which NPR has attempted to promote any sort of political diversity, any balance at all in its program hosts and producers?

Thank you, Bob Garfield. The best summary indictment of the Bush administration I have heard.

Where was the hard-hitting criticism during the last eight years? Now that the Bush era is ending, the press gets brave. I hold the enablers (the mainstream press and the spineless Democrats in Congress) in only slightly less contempt than I hold the Bush regime.

WOW!!! Even better! John Petesch now tells me that I am "connected to" and "influenced by" and a "pet" of all these mysterious "OVERLORDS".... Wow! So I am an "insider", a "true believer", a subscriber and a "follower"??!! When in 'tarnation am I going to get some insider trading tips, some bailouts, some party invites, some club memberships--all the benefits of being a "Bushie" and a "cult" member?? As a part-time stay-at-home Dad who chooses to take my own garbage to the dump to save a few bucks each month, my 2-year-old will love to learn that I am hooked up in this fashion with all our "OVERLORDS".... Who do I call or email to cash in on this group I belong to, John???

Again, as the thanks pour in to Bob Garfield, we see the dynamic at work; loyal partisans, angry at the "Criminal-in-Chief," grateful for thier views being given public airtime. And promising their support for more of the same.

There is a consitutional right to hold those views of course. But is there a right to government-funded broadcasting of those views, exclusively?

Bob Garfield holds a rather astonishing position in the world history of hypocrisy for attacking Ken Tomlinson as a "professional propagandist" by virtue of Tomlinson's service as Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (with oversight of Voice of America, etc.), when Garfield is his own domestic propagandist on the politically homogenous (left) NPR network.

Terriffic! Bravo! About time someone said it. And, it isn't a partisan bias to say so--today's conservatives would flay folks like Buckley and Goldwater, and even Nixon alive, but then claim them as the source of their ideology. The conservatives of today are hypocritical, morally bankrupt, none too bright, and found at long last to have no decency left. Bye, George. Here are a some size tens for ya. Adios.

Regarding what some listeners heard as us sparing the media themselves of blame, we have spent eight sorry years documenting chapter and verse media errors of omission and commisaion, especially with respect to the war in Iraq. Our archive are overflowing with such material. This essay focused on Bush because Bush is the one leaving town. The press is staying put, and we'll stay on that story for as ever.

One word, Mr. Garfield - BRAVO!!

Mr. Bush has led an all-out assault on the democracy of this nation for the past 8 years. And all in the guise of being a "true American" I wonder if he has any idea what that means?

My last comment to Mr. John Petesch:

1. Instead of hypothesizing about what 99% of the world and 78% of the country think (you, John, could NOT even know what 2% of the world thinks on the Bob Garfield piece--since it just came out yesterday!), let's just stick to what WE think about the Garfield piece--ok, John?

2. Go re-read the guidelines on comments please, John. Instead of pre-supposing that you know whether or not I am a "Bushie", again, please stick to the Garfield piece and the comments themselves. Two of your comments are bordering on personal attacks or comments on people commenting, rather than sticking to the Garfield piece and the CONTENT of the comments--no PERSONAL statements that indicate you know who I voted for--you do not. Nor do you know what clubs I belong to or who my manipulative "OVERLORDS" are. Thanks, John, for listening!

Bravo! Someone needed to say it, and to say so isn't partisan. The conservatives of today would flay men like Buckley, Goldwater and even Nixon alive, then turn around and claim them as their idological forefathers. These aren't conservatives, but in fact nihilists. Bye, George. Have some size tens on your way out.

Bob, the only listeners whining about the complacent media are your far-left constituents who wnated more fire-breathing attacks on President Bush, at an earlier date, and with greater frequency.

One of the great canards if you talk to an NPR Ombudsman or station manager is that they say, "We get lots of complaints from the left that NPR isn't hard-hitting enough; that it is too compliant with moderate and conservative viewpoints." No doubt.

But of course the NPR stations that do mostly news/talk/opinion broadcasting have already self-selected their listenerships. NPR, led by the likes of "Senior News Analyst" (don't you love the notion of a news "Analyst"?) Dan Schorr, spans the entire range of politcal views from the left, to the far left, to the radical left, to the Monster-Raving-Looney Left. (Can anyone imagine a Fox News Reporter, participating in an anti-Obama protest, getting arrested? It happened to Amy Goodman in Minneapolis.) And when those folks call in with their comments and financial support, those are the views you'd expect to get.

Now that I go back and look at the beginning of the Garfield piece again, I find something interesting, but possibly unprovable. I now realize that Bob's very jumping off point for the piece--the "I have respected you," statement that Bush made to the press corps--is in fact misconstrued by Bob. With hindsight, President Bush is saying that he has respected the press themselves in the job that they have done through his term. If you listen to the comment you can see that clearly. He is saying, if I may take the liberty, "I have respected you, the press, for what you have done here in this room over the years." He is being gracious and polite. And he believes it--because he knows that many, many persons do not use the mainstream press, or if they do, they do not take them seriously any longer (and four decades of Presidential elections might sort of prove that point). He is NOT saying, "I respect the press for the job they are doing in general." He is NOT saying, "I respect you as a source of information for my country." He is NOT saying, "I respect how you have treated me." (although he could have made some more strong remarks to the contrary) He is simply saying graciously that I have respected what you have done here in a friendly way, a simple way, a straight way. In fact, I believe that Bob Garfield TOTALLY and purposefully misconstrues that statement and only to use it a a jumping-off point for an anti-Bush tirade--again blowing Bush up into the grand, evil, OVERLORD that the likes of John Petesch see in him--totally off-base even in such a presentation and connection.

Wow. I really respect your commentary on this, Charles. I could not agree more. My state's political contingent in Minneapolis got spit on (literally) and had milk thrown at them by liberal demonstrators when those arrests occured. I just can't see conservative demonstrators in general resorting to that sort of thing (I am NOT including the religious segment and the abortion clinic craze in this--just "political" or "social" demonstrations). Yet the kinder, gentler liberals (who, incidentally, were the first to sort of resort to borderline personal attacks in this very column above) and who claim to be more "sensitive" and "caring about others" seem to be the most angry, aggressive, and physically degrading in their forms of protest...interesting. As has been suggested above, they INSIST that they are "politically correct" and "right" while they are out of the other sides of their mouths disputing the whole notion that there even IS such a thing as a culturally, politically, and socially "right" or "correct" position. Of course, this gets them into trouble when people like militant Islamics or the other "crazies" referred to above come along....BUT, they would defend those people above an "OVERLORD" worshipper like myself.... :)

Ohmigod, did Bob Garfield really just say "f--- you" to a sitting President ... on the radio?! Wow. Doubly amazing for having slipped the F word past the FCC. Way to go, Bob!

Will you suddenly be off the air next week when Brooke comes back, or will you get a raise? I hope the latter.

Well done.

Yes, Wendy. He did! Either "f--- you" to President Bush (the most popular interpretation) or "s---- you, President Bush". To a sitting president. It certainly raises Bob Garfield above the President's level, correct? Bob Garfield is classier, smarter, older, wiser, more creative, a harder worker, more experienced, more gracious, more ethical, more moral, more insightful, more sympathetic, more honest, more genuine, more serious, more factual, more American, more free, more at liberty, more respectable, more well-spoken, more thorough, more timely, and Bob Garfield has done more for his country than the President also. Probably better educated? Bob G. is certainly under more pressure than the President, as Bob is defending on a full-time basis the honorable and reasonable press that has watched over the unreasonable OVERLORD for 4-plus years now. This piece accomplished so much to further our freedoms and democracy, much like OTM has for almost 8 years now. That is why they so cheerfully and happily and in a "better-than-though" fashion can say "f--- you" to a sitting president like that. Bob Garfield, 1. President Bush, 0. Atta boy, Bob. Great job! (Is my sarcasm drippy enough? So I lost to Bob, too?) By the way: suggestion to other media types--do not try to do what Bob Garfield just did to a sitting President or you may get fired. In the REAL world, you certainly would.

Charlie Brown,

You and your bauble-head side-kick, dufus, still need to work on your argument.

The seriously lame angle that tax deductions for donations amount to public funding does not hold water unless you are willing to agree that churches, and indeed any organization should not have donations be tax exempt, or that the organizations or churches themselves should not be exempt from taxes.

I am athiest, and so do not believe churches should be favored as exempt from taxation, yet I don't go around whining about it.

Accordingly, any Scrooge can make the same claim about any organization, no matter how philanthropic (Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?)

Seeing as how you are a loyal Bushie, I expect you would have a real problem with government rescinding your churches tax exempt status just because I don't subscribe to religion.

As to Bauble-head's claim that the 2% figure is not right, I got the quote from wikipedia on the NPR entry, so he can go and argue with the Wiki's facts instead of me.

Bravo! I strongly feel the Cheney-Bush Administration's contempt for the media was a reflection of its contempt for its end users (involved, information-seeking Americans, hereinafter referred to as "the Elitists"). But I wish you would have addressed media's own participation in this "blackout." From 9/11/01 until about Spring of '06, the mainstreams served primarily as an echo-chamber for the Administration. (In fact, I give great credit to Stephen Colbert, whose address to the White House Press Corps slapped that bunch out of their slumber.) Nonetheless, you've deftly illustrated how the Mayberry Machiavellians sought to control the message; hopefully we all--the disseminators and consumers of information--remember the lesson.

Donation to follow.

This episode was smart and succinct in its listmaking of the many errs/complete violations of the last 8 years; Thank you. It needs to be said, it needs to be heard.

However, the "Thank you" at the end, while witty and ironic, stoops to Mr. Bush's administration's level-- the low ground.

I just wish someone would have said "F--k you" more often when he was actually president. Now is too late. It's too easy to say it now.

John Petesch, you've stuck your foot in it again, when you complain that churches get a tax deduction, so why not public broadcasting?

It is a good argument, until you get to the thorny little part about how we routinely deny churches their tax-exempt status the moment that they enter into partisan politics.

If you want to argue that it is a rule that is all-too-often winked at, I would strongly agree with you, and I think that the IRS is way overdue in cracking down on churches that operate as political bundlers. If you think that includes Pat Robertson, fine. I think it may include thousands of inner-city churches that serve as 'campaign central' for politicians like the Jacksons in Chicago, the Kilpatricks and Conyerses in Detroit, a whole series of mayors and councilpersons in Philadelphia and Baltimore, and the entire city government of Atlanta.

I'd be delighted to continue the tax-deductible status of Public Broadcasting if they would ban the editorials of Bill Moyers, Dan Schorr, Amy Goodman and Tvis Smiley.

Forget listener donations; I'd hope for more direct, federal funding if PBS and NPR stuck to broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera, Jazz from Lincoln Center, Ken Burns' films, and popular music shows like American Routes.

But I find it nauseating that there is any indicia of "public" in association with partisan hacks like Moyers or Amy Goodman. And when theirs are the only political voices, then it is an outrage.

I didn't "complain that churches get a tax deduction, so why not public broadcasting?"

Specifically I said:

"The seriously lame angle that tax deductions for donations amount to public funding does not hold water unless you are willing to agree that churches, and indeed any organization should not have donations be tax exempt, or that the organizations or churches themselves should not be exempt from taxes.

I am athiest, and so do not believe churches should be favored as exempt from taxation, yet I don't go around whining about it.

Accordingly, any Scrooge can make the same claim about any organization, no matter how philanthropic (Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?)

Seeing as how you are a loyal Bushie, I expect you would have a real problem with government rescinding your churches tax exempt status just because I don't subscribe to religion."

Lots of tax exempt organizations can be said to be political if one wants to bend over backward to make that claim. The American Red Cross claimed that the Bush administration was illegally holding and mistreating detainees at Guantanamo... someone like you might call claim the Red Cross was playing politics, and indeed, some in the administration made precisely that claim.

My point, therefore, is that you should not be whining about donations to NPR shows or NPR affiliates being tax deductible just because you disagree with content on those shows... unless you are willing to agree that no organization or church should be tax deductible.

Again, I will reiterate my point that these programs are 98% funded by private donations, foundation grants, and corporate sponsors. If they displeased the public who REALLY support them, they would not exist due to lack of funding So go give YOUR money to FOX NEWS.

Your report today reminded me of the shame, the embarrassment of the last years. Thanks, because, we shouldn't forget-- least of all the media shouldn't forget.

How do I remember it? The media in general was wholly negligent during Bush/Cheney.

Too bad these crooks didn't have any affairs, sex scandals, etc-- cause the media would have been all over the sex stuff. War crimes, crimes against humanity and good old fashioned lying? It just doesn't sell, doesn't get traction like it used to...

Maybe people think this is too trivial, but no one has responded/refuted my comment (#43) that Bob was just flat out wrong when he said Bush was guilty of "illegal wiretaps". The courts found differently. Or is Bob the ultimate judge now? I could refute about 6 other points he made, but why bother? I do agree that Bush was inept and wrong when he set up staged press conferences, etc. Big deal. If that is the best you have, OK. Contrary to the belief of the press, it is not the administrations responsibility to write their stories for them, or even cooperate with them. I think they should cooperate to a reasonable degree, but nothing says they have to. And given the strong Democratic bias of the NY TImes, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., why would they? Survey after survey shows that about 80% of the newspaper media are registered Democrats and consistently vote that way, and only an idiot could read their editorial pages and not know they are liberals.

You know, I would love to see OTM go back in time and do the same kind of analysis on all the civil liberties Lincoln ignored, and how the press said nothing about it. And Roosevelt. And how Kennedy and Johnson manipulated the press in exactly the same way they are saying Bush did (and he did). All Presidents have planted stories, they call them trial balloons. But the venom for Bush is unprecedented. Really is hard to understand.

Hard to understand, huh?

Well, just take a look around to see what we're left with after a quarter century of Republican ideology and especially eight years of Georgie W.