We believe in freedom.

We believe in hard work.

We believe that good work should be well rewarded.

We believe in the right to own property which is the reward of our work; and we believe in the right of our spouses and children to inherit our property upon the occasion of our passing.

We believe in the rights of the individual to pursue their self-interest wherever it may lie. We also believe in the rule of law as a protection against the excesses of the few for whom the pursuit of self-interest crosses the border into the criminal and thereby threatens the health, safety, privacy, and security of our persons, our families, and our interests.

Therefore, we recognize the necessity for a government to enforce the rule of law.

We believe that all people must be treated equally by the law, and that a person’s genetics, heritage, fortunes, or social status must not be used to dispose the law toward that person in either a favorable or an unfavorable manner.

We believe that the interests of the people outweigh the interests of the state, and we agree that the people should look askance and even raise an outcry whenever the state seeks an expansion of its powers.

We believe in democracy, because we believe that the government’s purpose is to serve the people, and we believe that the right to govern can only be bestowed by the people.

We believe in the Constitution. We cherish the separation of powers which prevents our great nation from slipping into the clutches of tyranny.

We believe in the Bill of Rights.

We believe that we have a right to say what we want, how we want, when we want.

We believe that we have an inalienable right to organize, and to gather together without hindrance.

We believe that there is such a thing as a higher calling. We believe that there are forces at play in our universe that transcend the understanding of humans. We believe that the government has no place dictating to us what we should believe about the nature of the sublime and transcendent elements of the universe.

We believe that guns are tools, and like many tools they are dangerous and even deadly if used improperly. We believe that the existence of criminals in the world does not justify the elimination of such tools; on the contrary.

We believe in the right to privacy. We believe that the government does not have the right to search our property or to intercept our communications without a warrant issued based on probably cause.

We believe that our government is unduly swayed by special interests.

We believe that the power of the people has been diluted, and we want to see our democracy restored. We are in agreement that the only way to restore people’s faith in our system of government is to eliminate the influence of the special interests. Whether we choose to focus our ire on 501(c) groups, or on corporations, churches, or unions, we are in agreement that influence is the problem; and the solution is to get the money out of politics.

We believe that the government spends too much. We may not agree on specific line items; but back in 2008 when I wrote the book, I quite strongly voiced my objection to the astronomical federal budget deficit. This is not just a conservative issue.

We believe that the health care overhaul was largely misdirected. Back in 2008, I wrote in the book than an individual private insurance mandate is entirely the wrong approach to health care reform. (I staunchly favor the public option.) In the same way that Medicare reform under Bush was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, now health care reform under Obama is a giveaway to the insurance industry.

To top it off, I’ll go one further. I agree with conservatives that most of the Democrats in Congress are corrupt politicians toadying to the interests of their campaign donors. Of course, I believe that the Republicans in Congress are even worse. They are both dirty.

Progressives and conservatives agree on all these points and more.

We aren’t so different, you and I.

A detailed analysis of political coverage by National Public Radio reveals a distinct partisan bias.  The following article provides irrefutable numeric evidence to support this conclusion.

While biased news coverage is commonplace in today’s media, most of us have come to expect better from NPR, which strives to garner paid memberships through its open-minded capacity to “consider all things” as it were.  We expect National Public Radio to make a conscious effort to provide nonpartisan news coverage.  Indeed, most people, if asked, would probably say that National Public Radio is subject to a liberal bias.  But numbers don’t lie; and the numbers say that NPR’s coverage of politics is heavily slanted in favor of the conservative viewpoint.  If you don’t believe my calculations, I invite you to visit NPR’s online archives, create a spreadsheet, and draw your own conclusions.  The data is there for anyone who wishes to parse it.

Requests for Comment

I contacted NPR’s Talk of the Nation repeatedly with requests for comment for this story, but they chose not to respond.  After several days I then went over their heads and contacted NPR’s corporate office directly; but NPR corporate likewise did not respond, much to my disappointment.

Premise

It would not have been practical to comb through every single news story on every program that NPR has aired over the past year.  For the purpose of this analysis, NPR’s overall political leanings are represented by “The Political Junkie,” a regular feature specifically dedicated to coverage of politics and the political arena.  Readers who feel that a single show about politics does not fairly represent the organization’s overall political bias (even though it features NPR’s senior political editor) may simply choose to read the following as an indictment of that particular program.

Background

National Public Radio’s two-hour call-in program Talk of the Nation airs at midday every weekday (the precise hour depends on your time zone; on the West Coast it begins at 11am).  Each Wednesday, Talk of the Nation opens with a segment called The Political Junkie.  The Political Junkie segment usually features NPR’s senior political editor Ken Rudin, although others occasionally fill in when he is away.

Ken Rudin is a controversial figure who has repeatedly called President Obama’s birth certificate into question on the air, thereby aligning himself with some of the most extreme voices in the conservative movement.  (See here and here .)[1] As related above, NPR did not even bother to decline to comment on this story; they made no response at all; but if it were possible to get a reply out of Ken Rudin, he might explain away his comments as a joke.  I for one was not laughing.

Methodology

In order to determine whether or not The Political Junkie demonstrates a political bias, I analyzed transcripts posted on NPR’s website http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5 .  I created a spreadsheet, and in it I noted all the guests who have appeared on the show for the past year, and their political affiliation where applicable.

Guests on the show included politicians, activists, journalists, pollsters, analysts, and academics.  Candidates and party officials were identified by their affiliation.  (I counted Arlen Specter as a Democrat, even though he is a recently Republican turncoat.)  Guests from think tanks were identified by their institution’s known affiliation.  Lobbyists and campaign workers were identified by political affiliation if it was stated in the piece.  Otherwise, no effort was made to determine the political affiliation of journalists, pollsters, analysts, or academics.

The only guests counted were formal guests who had been invited by the program’s producers to provide commentary.  I did not tally the individual callers or their political affiliation, although a comprehensive analysis of who gets past the screeners might also be telling.

In addition to the guests themselves, my spreadsheet noted the following:

• Titles of the shows from the past six months
• Specific groups who were asked to call in over the course of the past six months; for example, “Voters in Delaware, we want to hear from you, give us a call.”

Finally, I went through and counted all the political advertisements played on the show over the course of the past month.  This was very time consuming, as it requires reading each transcript in detail; but a month’s worth of shows seemed like a reasonable sample, especially since the month in question is the lead-up to an election, a time period when news outlets should be trying harder than ever to provide balanced coverage.

All source data is posted at the bottom of this article for reference.

Guests on The Political Junkie

In the past year, The Political Junkie has featured 23 guests who were either conservative or extremely conservative.  In the same time period, the show has featured 18 guests who were moderate or progressive.  The Political Junkie featured 27.8% more conservative guests in the past year. If this had been an election, it would have been a landslide.  (Incidentally, the number was skewed even more heavily towards conservatives when I began writing this piece; but the show brought another Democrat on while I was waiting for a response from NPR.)

The astute reader may note that for the September 29 air date, I included two show titles.  The Political Junkie show itself varies in length but often lasts 45 minutes.  The September 29 show was the only Political Junkie show in the entire year to follow an initial half-hour segment with a fifteen minute “Op-Ed” piece.  Since the Op-Ed piece was specifically about politics, I considered it a continuation of The Political Junkie, which was how it sounded when I originally heard it aired live.

A year’s worth of Political Junkie guests are listed here.

Political Junkie Show Subjects in the Past Six Months

In the past six months, there were 11 shows that were specifically dedicated to discussion of the Tea Party or to various Republican races. During the same time there were just 5 shows specifically covering Democrats and Democratic issues.  The remaining 12 shows during this period were not specifically related to a given political affiliation.

The Political Junkie aired 120% more shows covering conservative issues. That’s right: more than twice as many.

Of the relatively few shows that did discuss Democrats specifically, 3 of them were highly critical.  By comparison, of the much larger number of shows that discussed the Tea Party and Republicans, none of them were critical: none at all.

Show topics are listed here.

Voter Groups Whose Input Was Requested in the Past Six Months

In the past six months, The Political Junkie has twice specifically asked for Republicans to call in (May 12 and April 14).  Within this same time period the show has never specifically asked for Democrats to call in.  (On several other occasions, voters from a specific state were asked to call in, usually in connection with a primary race featuring a Tea Party candidate, although on those occasions the show’s host did not name a particular political party when asking callers to pick up the phone.)

Political Advertisements Played on The Political Junkie in the Past Month

The number of political ads played on The Political Junkie in the past month is a crucial metric for several reasons.  The time period considered here is essential, because it is the lead-up to an important election.  By playing these ads, the radio show is communicating the messages contained within the advertisements to NPR’s listening audience.  The groups involved get the benefit of having their message rebroadcast to a much larger audience at no additional cost.  As long as there is some balance between the number of advertisements for each faction, it is reasonable to argue that the advertisements are presented for discussion.  However, any imbalance amounts to free political advertising.

The imbalance is staggering.  In the past month, The Political Junkie has aired 9 Republican advertisements (either ads for a Republican, or ads against a Democrat).  In the same time period, the show aired only 3 ads from the other side (either for a Democrat or against a Republican).  The show played three times as many Republican advertisements. This single statistic alone blows any question of balance out of the water.

The simple fact is that Talk of the Nation’s Political Junkie show, and by extension National Public Radio itself, is overtly promoting the Republican agenda.

Political advertisements aired by The Political Junkie in the past month are listed here.

Conclusion

NPR has become Fox News for the radio. There is no semblance of balance in their coverage of politics.

Political Advertisements Aired by The Political Junkie

Show Topics on The Political Junkie

Political Junkie Guests

What a shame there are so many millions of people just like my neighbor throughout the country. I maintain hope that rational, well-meaning people can overpower the conservative defeatism that is attempting to drag down our efforts to create positive change and to instead mire us in the conservative muck.

Conservatives are opposed to change. That is what the word “conservative” means: people who espouse this philosophy wish to conserve the status quo. It does NOT have anything to do with fiscal responsibility, as was so aptly evidenced by the egregious economic mismanagement of the Bush administration. The result of Republican economic policies: double-digit unemployment.

So Bush was in the White House for eight years, and the Republicans controlled Congress for four years prior to that. Twelve years of Republican philosophy had their inevitable consequence: the worst economic disaster our country has suffered since the Great Depression. The American people got mad enough about the economy that they voted President Obama into the White House. Now he’s been in office for all of a year, and people are already angry at him, because he hasn’t somehow magically fixed twelve years of Republican mismanagement in twelve months of Democratic presidency. Come on people, we all heard the jokes, but did you REALLY think he was some sort of magical messiah? He’s a person like any other, and a person elected to the Presidency is only as strong as his support in Congress.  Commentators like to go on and on about how the Democrats have been unable to pass a health care bill even with a majority in the Senate; but they didn’t really have a filibuster-proof majority, did they? They didn’t even have 60 Senators who campaigned on the Democratic ticket.  Senator Joe Leiberman (Independent) stumped for John McCain’s Presidential campaign, for crying out loud: he is NOT a Democrat!

Now that Republican Scott Brown has won the Senate race in Massachusetts, the health care bill is unquestionably dead. The bill may have been bloated, misguided, and loaded with ridiculous provisions, but meaningful health care reform is long overdue in this country, and without any bill we can all look forward to a continuation of the status quo: skyrocketing rates for insurance policies that only the healthy can buy; coverage that is dropped or refused for sick people; and an endlessly growing number of medical bankruptcies. Thank you, conservative America, for imposing this little corner of Hell on the working people of our country.

Yes, the conservatives love their status quo. The status quo is, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The conservative agenda is neo-feudalism, as I discuss at some length in the book. Woe to anyone who attempts to interfere with the conservative march towards a feudalist oligarchy! The media will gleefully allow conservative pundits to talk for as long as they like about how the opponents of neo-feudalism are themselves somehow opposed to freedom or something. Their argument doesn’t make any sense, but it doesn’t HAVE to make sense, it just has to appeal to the gut reactions of their xenophobic base demographic.

But there are progressives out there: real progressives.  I’m not talking about self-serving Senators doing back-room deals with big corporations; they will say in public whatever they have to say to get more campaign contributions, but they are hardly progressive.  I’m talking about the ordinary citizens of this country, everyday people, me, you, our spouses and friends.  With poorly paying jobs in a bad economy, we are too busy trying to make ends meet to clog up the streets with anti-”TeaParty” demonstrations, but we know that we are in the majority because we elected President Obama, and we elected him because we believe in change.  It is difficult, when presented with the endless, insufferable cynicism of the other side, it is difficult to maintain hope; but that is precisely what we must do.  Keeping our hope alive is the only way forward.

In the book I have an entire chapter titled “Consciously Creating Positive Social Change.”  The main thrust of the chapter’s thesis is that everyday people can change the system, against the system’s will, by building consensus until it achieves critical mass.  The election of President Obama was not the attainment of that critical mass: it was just the beginning, and it was a call to arms for the opponents of change, the opponents of peace, the opponents of freedom and equality.  They have gone on the offensive and frankly they have done a better job with their PR for the past year. 

They can’t be allowed to shout us down forever. We have to get out there and be heard.  We have to let the world know that America is not just a country of the haters, by the haters, for the haters.  We have to let the world know that we believe in change, that we will fight for change, and that we’re not going to give up just because somebody with a hacked copy of Photoshop pasted a Hitler moustache on the face of the President of the United States.  We have to let the world know that we believe in reform, and that we are going to stand up for freedom and equality, in the face of conservative opposition, for as long as we have to, because it is the right thing to do.

We have to let the world know that we still have hope.

I do.