No, it doesn't. I resent the idea of government deciding what is fair and balanced news.

So say we all.

But if the government is going to get into the business of running a news network, I'll be damned if it is going to be a private enclave of liberals.

And what the hell this has to do with NPR, I've no idea. It receives only a small element of its budget from the federal government, not a controlling interest and certainly not a preconstructed "private enclave of liberals"(whatever *that* is these days).

If the internal management of NPR chooses to retain those you see as "liberals" for their presenters and such, that's their decision based presumably upon sound business reasons and catering to the interests of their audience. That you don't find this to your personal tastes, while healthy, is hardly reason to demand the network change its programming.

The 'fairness doctrine' is dead. Dead and gone, good riddance. You sound like you want to revive it. Good luck. You haven't a chance.

You need to have your ears cleaned out. The 'fairness doctrine' is so absurd an idea as to be epic comedy. My point was your call for "fair and balanced" programming in this respect is both short-sighted and not a little hypocritical.

We're not talking about the fairness doctrine with respect to NPR News bias. We're talking about the internal management of NPR and PBS.

Yes, precisely! See above.

We conservatives and Republicans get a voice in that, along with everybody else.

You have that voice, through other radio networks broadcasting on the public airwaves as well as the various guests hosting there. Plus you have the option and indeed the right to switch the station to one more of your liking. You can even lobby your representatives in Congress to terminate NPR's funding.

Isn't it great to be an American?

It was so easy to sell this war to the American people -- so easy. And now the process has begun to sell the "win". Why are people any more surprised when the same stenographers for the war are pushing the current White House agenda?

Its not really surprise most of feel, more of a resigned endurance that the media proves, once again, its just not capable of doing the job we expected of it.

The real question is why such a hard sell.

Primarily I suspect because, despite the frankly screwed-up idea of what constitutes "war" in the minds of many Americans, the public has really caught on to the screaming disaster this occupation is. And, again despite the relatively small number of our population actually deployed in Iraq, the strain on our military is clearly starting to show. Witness the outrage over the conditions in Walter Reed and the ongoing debate over improving the GI Bill.

Under those circumstances, the Administration has to sell this mess as a "win" and do it fast, or else risk not being able to pass it off to their successors.

The world is just waiting for the right moment.

Hopefully and gods and goddesses willing, it won't have to wait much longer.

I don't give a rip about how much funding that NPR claims it gets from the federal government. It is a network that is built upon public funding. Its member stations are more or less routinely housed in public universities and other public entities. It is a publicly-chartered institution.

It isn't actually. Its a radio network that, as you say, receives some public funding and has member stations in public entities.

It nevertheless is NOT wholly publically owned or operated.

The fact its programming doesn't conform to you tastes is, fundamentally, irrelevant to its operation. And your venting vapors over it doesn't improve your standing either.

The "listener donations" argument carries no weight. Public radio stations are, first and last, public entities. I regard NPR with EXTRA suspicion if it is true (as I think it is) that its donor base skews to the left.

That's the problem with reality: you have to confront unpleasant facts and figures. Including the fact there's a large segment of the population that likes the programming on NPR and who are willing to chip in to keep it on the air.

I question why NPR is doing news at all. We are awash in news these days. What is 'alternative' about news broadcasting? We have 24-hour news on radio and television. What does NPR do that the private sector can't or won't do?

An excellent question. Perhaps you should address it to the management of NPR and PBS rather than demanding the atlas be painted only pink.

NPR ought to do what it was intended to do. Provide alternative arts and educational programming.

A valid opinion, but merely one of many, and ultimately no more important than anyone else's.