You don't like Fox? Don't watch it! You're not paying for it! But I see and hear much more slanted political ideology msquerading as "news" and "journalsim" on NPR and PBS, which are publicly funded and supported, than on Fox broadcasting or on the FoxNews cable channel.

Obviously, both networks feature 'guests' and interview subjects from all across the political spectrum. (Although it is hard to think of any but the most moderate and mainstream conservatives, people like David Brooks, ever getting a hearing on NPR.)

But focusing on program hosts and full-time staff reporters, who are (a) the Liberal Democrats on Fox, and the Conservative Republicans on NPR?

I submit that on NPR, our nation's public radio network, there are NO conservative Republican program hosts.

Over at Fox News, the supposedly right-wing private propaganda network, there are plenty of liberal Democrat voices. Greta Van Sustern (who hosts an admittedly crappy but largley apolotical show), Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes (who shares a program with Sean Hannity), and it gives regular air time to panelists Juan Williams and Mara Liasson of NPR. I'm guessing there are more, whom I am omitting right now.

It is an outrage, and critics of Fox have little to complain about.

@elephantman

Check out this like, and note the logo at the top:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4579074

-- Indiana Bob

So, you point out that David Brooks (whom I had earlier mentioned by name) is given the title "Commentator" by NPR. So what? Brooks routinely apppears once a week, on Fridays, on All Things Considered, when he does a joint interview with EJ Dionne, for right-left balance. Brooks is among the most moderate of conservative commentators in any event, but he is practically never interviewed without the accompanying left-side balance from EJ Dionne. Occasionally, NPR tabs Rich Lowery to do the David Brooks role. Rich Lowery's appearance on NPR is a startling rarity for the network.

Compare to Brooks, the daily input from NPR's "Senior News Analyst," the leftist and Republican-hating Dan Schorr. Schorr is on 5, 6 or sometimes seven days a week... doing what? Providing left-wing spin on whatever the news is. "Commentary." NPR has bestowed the "News Analyst" title on a handful of strongly Democrat-leaning figures: Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts in addition to Schorr, and most recently Ted Koppel, who - remarkably - is probably the most non-partisan person to hold that position at NPR. So what NPR provides, in the end, in terms of its program hosts, is a range of political views extending from the moderate left to the extreme left. (The extremist left in the form of Amy Goodman and Tavis Smiley, with his own regular commentators Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West. Among many others, such as Terry Gross and Ferai Chedayah.)

There is just no comparison to any other network in terms of the consistency and the extent of the entrenched links between NPR and the Democrat party and/or the far left.

Loyal Republicans like me are routinely sneered at as "30 per centers" here at Salon.

I submit that Glenn Greenwald is one of the "30 per centers" on telcom immunity.

Please, please, please, let a Democrat like Obama or Hillary campaign for the Presidency on the notion that they support lawsuits against the telcoms who cooperated with the Executive branch in the war on terror.

The Elephantman's graveyard.

I submit that Glenn Greenwald is one of the "30 per centers" on telcom immunity.

Why so? Based upon your own predilications for illegal activity, or simply because you need to take a contrary position?

Please, please, please, let a Democrat like Obama or Hillary campaign for the Presidency on the notion that they support lawsuits against the telcoms who cooperated with the Executive branch in the war on terror.

Hmmm. Support due process and the rule of law, or support blatantly illegal activity in the name of a nonexistent "war"?

Anyone with an ounce of integrity would find that an easy one.

-- Iokannan in the Well

Look, you're not going to change my mind on the issue and I don't maintain any illusion of changing yours. All that I am saying is that I can hardly wait to start campaigning on Obama's pro-lawsuit vote. And then let voters in swing states decide. Hell, this year California and New York might be "swing states." And Obama won't even be defended on this issue by most of his Senate colleagues or even notable neocon hawks like, uh, Jamie Gorelick. Riiiight.

I think the real 'fault line' here is between the mainstream of security-minded Americans and...

The far left, whose default position is to blame American first, and who regard the war on terror as a purely domestic law enforcement issue.

Nice try but no dice, Elephantman

...

See how "mainstream" you position is when you find yourself under surveillance for no discernable reason, or when your door is kicked in by soldiers and you stand accused of crimes not your own.

I'd pity you, but I don't believe in wasted emotion.

-- Iokannan in the Well

Geeze!

If I lived in one of the places that many of you are from (New York City, the port of Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, London, etc.) I'd be one helluva lot more concerned about being blown up on a train, or an airliner, or in an office building, than I am concerned about any violation of my own (or anyone else's) genuine privacy. Following 9/11, I am aware of almost 3,000 people whose civil rights got pretty severely 'violated' that day. And hundreds more in London, Madrid and Bali. And thousands more in Beirut, Gaza and Iraq.

Could somebody please answer what could conceivably be one of the first interrogatories to a plaintiff in a telcom civil lawsuit: "What is you claim for monetary damages? Please detail each and every element of your claimed damages."