![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
False Equivalencies
September 30th, 2009 08:00 amYesterday I read someone talking about the unfortunate split caused by two party politics, a sentiment I'd tend to agree with. They lost me, though, when they started playing the false-equivalency game, ie: "They're all nuts! You think the right wingers on fox are bad, but listen to the left wingers on NPR!"
As it happens, this morning I happened to have a borrowed car, and I listened to NPR on the way to work. I'm not over-joyed by their coverage -- particularly, I'd like to hear the important news on the pre-8-o-clock slot, not cute things about baseball and pizza. But given what their important political coverage DOES sound like...how could anyone in their right mind compare it to the vile, shouting talking heads you get on Faux? Anyone who thinks Renee Montagne calmly reading morning edition has the same polarizing impact as Glenn Beck or BillO screaming for blood and virtue has clearly got to be nuts.
Anyone who thinks NPR represents the voice of the radical left has never met anyone on the radical left. Seriously. I'M more liberal than NPR, and I'M not part of the 'radical' left.
As it happens, this morning I happened to have a borrowed car, and I listened to NPR on the way to work. I'm not over-joyed by their coverage -- particularly, I'd like to hear the important news on the pre-8-o-clock slot, not cute things about baseball and pizza. But given what their important political coverage DOES sound like...how could anyone in their right mind compare it to the vile, shouting talking heads you get on Faux? Anyone who thinks Renee Montagne calmly reading morning edition has the same polarizing impact as Glenn Beck or BillO screaming for blood and virtue has clearly got to be nuts.
Anyone who thinks NPR represents the voice of the radical left has never met anyone on the radical left. Seriously. I'M more liberal than NPR, and I'M not part of the 'radical' left.
