NPR Watch (10/6/17) — NPR’s Selective Outrage

This morning on National Public Radio’s fake news program, “Morning Edition,” host Steve Inskeep (shown above) was interviewing some Republican Congressman or other about “bump stocks,” gun accessories that make semi-automatic guns act like automatic weapons.

Inskeep abruptly changed the subject to ask the Rep. about what Inskeep implied was President Trump’s effort, in support of an agenda to get rid of Obamacare, to keep premiums high in Oklahoma, when there was a “bureaucratic way to reduce those premiums 30% for hundreds of thousands of Obamacare subscribers.”

Pretty bad, eh? If Trump was keeping premiums high for hundreds of thousands of patients when there was a chance to lower them? Lousy rotten Trump!


One might wonder where NPR was when Barack Obama stated outright his intent to raise energy prices to painful levels for tens of millions of Americans in order to support his political agenda. There was not a peep from NPR. I know. I listened.

Where was NPR when mayor Bloomberg in New York was proposing to tax sugary beverages in order to reduce their consumption, a political agenda?

Where was NPR when the government extorted cigarette companies out of billions of dollars in support of a political agenda?  Where are they now, when a pack of cigarettes costs around $10, and something like $8 of that is taxes to support the political agenda of reducing smoking?

And so on.

Guess what, NPR: The government fiddles with the tax code and with how it doles out money — tax money — to states. And always in support of some political agenda or other.


The Republican Congressman missed an opportunity  in the interview. I’d have loved it if he’d replied along the following lines:

Are you, at NPR, seriously asking me that question? Where were you when President Obama outright told tens of millions of American people to their faces that he was going to do all he could to raise their energy rates to painful levels? Obama even used the word “painful.” There wasn’t a peep out of NPR then. You guys aren’t serious news people; you’re nothing more than partisan hacks.

One can fantasize, can’t one? Presumably those interviews are pre-recorded, though — I mean he was speaking with a Republican! Can’t let that conversation happen unfiltered! — so, that beautiful reply never would have been aired.

Our headline implies that NPR knows that they’re being selectively outraged at the possibility that President Trump might try to keep Obamacare premiums artificially elevated in order to sink the horrible law. However, it might be simply that the people of NPR are just rock-brained stupid.

— xPraetorius

8 thoughts on “NPR Watch (10/6/17) — NPR’s Selective Outrage

    1. Looking forward to watching it, Desdi! Thanks for the heads-up! They, NPR, are a constant source of object lessons in media corruption. Sometimes it’s fatiguing trying to keep up with them. For example, on the ride home from work yesterday evening, I heard the host of their so-called “serious” finance” program — Marketplace do a serious segment on the “pay gap between men and women.”

      Now, one would think that on the network that bills itself as the serious, in-depth network “for news and ideas,” they’d know that the so-called “Gender Pay Gap” has long been debunked, and — comparing apples to actual apples — doesn’t exist in any meaningful way. Meaning, yes, there is a “pay gap,” and it amounts to a couple of pennies here and there, and in many instances and industries, doesn’t exist at all.

      What’s even funnier is that NPR participated in the debunking of the co-called “Gender Pay Gap” themselves! We did a feature on it. (here)

      To put a finer point on it, one would think that on a finance show, on the network that bills itself as the serious, in-depth network “for news and ideas,” the host — a certain Kai Ryssdal — would know that the “Gender Pay Gap” had long been debunked. But…no, he didn’t.

      The feature was almost funny… Ryssdal introduced the Pay Gap story (he used 80 cents on the dollar, not the usual 77 cents figure) and brought on some academic or other, who then droned on about all the stuff that was long, long ago shown to be just not a problem, or simply not true, and the segment ended.

      What’s really funny is the easy, breezy style that Ryssdal has in his delivery of what was simply a load of hooey! It was as if he was treating his topic as such obvious common knowledge that, of course, everyone knows about it! And it was all false… fake, hogwash, meaningless twaddle addressing a long disproven problem.

      What that means, simply, is that all the content on NPR should be regarded — from the get go — as suspect, and likely either way, way, way behind the times or, simply… false.

      As we’ve often said in these pages: You always come out of a session with NPR “news” less informed, or less intelligent, than you go in..


      — x

          1. Currently live in nutmeg territory myself.
            (not sure if willingly, though.) Something weird and unsustainable about this state . . .

          2. Yep.

            CT can’t last long the way it’s going.

            That’s the story of the Left. As always, they set the places they control on a trajectory, which, if taken to its logical conclusion results in something awful.

            We’re on the brink of awful in CT. Some say we’ve already made it there.


            — x

  1. I’ll never forget last year Before Trump, listening to the Diane Rehm Show. I was on my way to work, and some caller phoned in and blasted her. You can find it here:

    Find mark 10:28:32. Or just read my snippet of it.

    The caller, Randy, stated: “And the media’s ratings are down at this level, below 5 percent and under, because you’re full of half truths. All of you. Every damn one of you.”

    When he said that on air, I cheered in my car. Much to the disadvantage of nearby commuters. Oh well, they had insurance.

    Diane dodges the statement, defers to another commentator, who proceeds to say that “I would just point out that newsrooms are fiercely independent.” Which is a load of tripe. Anyone with internet access can print off a copy of emails showing collusion between major media corporations and the DNC, donor lists, and amounts. I stopped listening to NPR when, after being called out, Diane Rehm refused to address it.

    Besides, without Car Talk, what is the point of that stupid radio station. It sickens me that the CPB provides any funding at all for it, especially state and local governments chipping in. Now if I ever happen to flicker past that station and hear them pleading for money, I get a giggle out of it. Go ahead. Beg. Beg for my financial mercy.

    If there was any self-awareness at all it wouldn’t be as predictably tragic.

    But then, the very name National Public Radio is a misnomer. Look at their Board. Retired execs from major corporations, CEO’s of financial institutions… Public my ass. Then you have the whole Michael Oreskes thing. But with his connections, is anyone surprised?

    If you look at their past covering of various geopolitical events, they are almost exactly in line with Clinton’s endorsements.

    The audacity they have to beg the public for our money…Why not ask some of your financial executives on the board for more? Or is that the problem? Are they so far up NPR’s ass that they are begging for financial freedom? Either way, the squealing is music to my ears.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s