Some on the right say National Public Radio has been on fair-and-balanced behavior since the GOP made its semi-annual kabuki run at NPR’s funding.
Funding still intact, of course. It’s a Republican ritual. The threat, not the cut.
As for NPR’s leftish bias, I’ll leave that up to the ether, where all such arguments begin and end, to the satisfaction of nobody.
Is too. Is not!
Two bookended stories on today’s All Things Considered show just how hard it is to quantify such bias.
The first was on an eco-sit-in [remember sit-ins? These folks sure do—or they learned about them in class]
outside the White House against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry “dirty” tar sands petroleum products from Canada to refineries on the US’ Gulf Coast.
We learned [or rather, NPR told us] that the pipeline really won’t amount to much in curing our dependence on foreign oil.
OK, got it.
The next story considered was the GOP’s strategy for the fall: to highlight, cancel, and/or stall impending new government regulations on business and industry that might curtail the creation of more jobs. [There is a bit of an unemployment crisis currently in the US.]
We learned [that is, NPR told us] that curtailing these regulations probably won’t amount to much in job creation.
OK, roger, got that too.
Now without disputing the truth of what we learned [or were told], what we have here is that the house wins all ties, “the house” being NPR, and what we have here is a tie, a push. Minimize the effect of the pipeline or the forestalling of new regulations to near-zero effect, and it’s a wash, a non-issue, and protecting the environment—a self-evident good—wins by default.
And this is how it’s done rhetorically, without lying. In Blackjack, the house has a minimal advantage of a half-percent. If you change the rules so the house wins every push on 17, its advantage rises to almost 2 percent, and all of sudden it’s the death of 1000 cuts.
Did NPR ask anybody if the new regulations would amount to much? Did NPR interview anybody about the jobs that would be created by constructing the pipeline, during and after?
You already know the answer to those. That would be comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges. That would have been all things considered, hence the rueful joke from the right about what “All” really means to NPR’s signature news show.
Next—hitting the trifecta here—ATC ran a story about the green jobs debacle at Solyndra, which is both apple and orange, and which appears to be a flushing of over a half-billion government dollars down the eco-wishing well.
By the time the story was over, you were left with the impression it was just one of those things. Could have been bad management, bad technology, whatever—other alternative energy companies are successful, afterall. No barometer of anything, really. Could have happened to anyone.
So how do I quantify–digitalize–all this mummery, and present clear stats to my empiricist friends on the left as evidence of NPR bias?
The answer is, I can’t. You had to be there. There was no Big Lie; there was no lying atall. Leftpersons probably heard the same thing I did, and detected only an even-handed review of the issues.
It’s not what you put in, it’s what you leave out. Not what you ask, but what you don’t ask. And in the case of honest people, what never occurs to you to ask in the first place. So it goes, and what’s at the genuine heart of our epistemological crisis.
____
LATE ADD: President Obama nixed the new environmental rules.
DUDE!!!!
Congratulations, TVD, this is a long time coming and well deserved.
Hey, it’s good to see you and your viewpoint representing here!
Tom van Dyke writing notes from Babel? Jesus, you couldn’t pay a straight man to hand you such an obvious set up.
Still, I have to admit this first post was both coherent and non-ridiculous, even truthful. Good start, Mr. van Dyke.
My man TVD frequently expounds some unpopular opinions. I find him to be thoughtful and more than capable of providing support for his position. The worst I would say of him is that he is falliable like the rest of us, the best I will say of him is that he is a seeker of truth like the bulk of us. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes not, but in either event that’s okay because no one should come to LOOG looking for an echo chamber. I think he’s a very good addition to the ranks of Ordinaries and Sub-Ordinaries offering their writings here, and he can and should be held to a higher standard of excellence than “coherent and non-ridiculous.”
Everything Burt just said.
Congrats!
Thank you kindly, gents and sub-gents. We shall fight the power from this corner of the basement.
TVD:
NPR has always had a lefty bias and always will. Just the other day, I was listening and they interviewed Julian Bond about the MLK monument and the second question was about whether or not the tea party was primarily motivated by racism. Why should taxpayers fund that BS?
And what was Julian Bond’s answer? Heh heh.
TVD:
It’s all racism with the tea party.
What someone once said about a Chicago pol the better part of a generation older than Bond: some of it is real feelings, some of it is shtick.
This likely has errors and omissions, but do you notice something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Bond
No mention of any authentic trade. For fifty years this man has been squatting in elective posts that are commonly (though not universally) a species of moonlighting for local attorneys and merchants or squatting on the staff of advocacy groups whose good works are obscure. Being a figurine in a diorama designed by Ken Burns or a hand puppet for and NPR chatterer are sidelines.
Incisive observation, JB. Being a figurine in a diorama pays, actually. Joe Louis as a greeter at the casino. Andrew Sullivan, “conservative.”
Tom, retract my previous comments or at least put them om hold.
This is a GREAT, GREAT start–bravo!!
I apologize for comments made before reading this. You’ve really done a very, very good job, hats off and keep up the good work. It will be a pleasure and many laughs reading your take on liberal nuts.
NPR is insidious because they assume the world is a certain way and most everything else flows from there. Once you buy into their assumptions you are powerless to resist.
Many right-minded people ask the wrong question in regard to NPR. The question isn’t whether they are right or left leaning but why we should be funding them for anything. This is the question socialistas do not want to hear because it means dismantling their tax payer funded kingdoms.
Beware the power of the dark side! (Wait a second, some of the content from a previous post is bleeding over into my consciousness.)
First things first – Congrats on the gig, dude. I have been looking forward to you posting regularly since I found out it was in the works last month. Well deserved, say I!
On to your first post…
I agree with what you say, up to a point. But I think that NPR is a different enough animal than other non-print media that it deserves more than a little bit of extra-credit compared against other news vehicles.
I get that NPR may – whether on purpose or otherwise – not always ask or explore all the questions that you or I might want them to explore. But as far as I am aware, they are the only non-print organization of any size out there regularly doing any kind of reporting at all. (I should note here that I am making a distinction between doing actual in-depth investigation on local, national and global topics and what the rest of the non-print media does. Rereading government and corporate press releases, interviewing celebrities, promoting new books and finding exceptionally good-looking murder victims and suspects to follow I am counting as being something entirely different.) Sometimes NPR drives me crazy, and sometimes they make me roll my eyes. But a lot of times they do stories on things like the patenting of ideas, or the unforeseen effects of court supervised drug programs that you never hear or see on any other TV or radio news program. I have found their HRC coverage slanted, but they are the only non-print organization that I have come across that does anything but argue R vs. D talking points. This American Life is the only news organization that I have ever known to do in-depth investigation on the question what can government do to create or even promote jobs in the private sector.
Your main point holds, but I wish that NPR was the rule and not the exception – biased or not.
You’ve said everything here I planned to say. NPR definitely leans left, but at least it’s news and dispassionate commentary and not just so much outrage or fear-mongering.
Mr. Kelly, there’s a universe of non-NPR reporting that fills your bill, that isn’t reporting by the left for the left. The left is satisfied with stuff like NPR as its fair-and-balanced news source, and sees no need to exceed its boundary.
If you want to now the effect of the recession on illegal Korean immigrants, NPR’s your man. [Actual story.]
But if you’d like to know the fallout of the Kelo decision, try the rightosphere, doing the same reportng you praise by its own non-gov’t subsidized “Army of Davids” [as InstaPundit puts it].
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/127309/
“Connecticut taxpayers have thus been soaked tens of millions of dollars, not just for nothing, but for making things worse — for transforming a nice local neighborhood into a dump.”
I appreciate the distinction you make here, that NPR reports information rather than merely recycle it. However, I still recognize the occasional hack from my ill-beloved LA Times, laid off and now recycled by NPR, same ol’ same ol’.
My condemnation here is more blanket than I’d prefer: nothing is all bad, and NPR does many interesting non-Dem/Rep stories, although in its selection of protagonists, it often or usually de facto takes a predictable side in the culture war.
When it’s not aping the mainstream media, it more resembles the countercultural “free” papers than it does, say Instapundit.
One of my core points here is an attempt at charity: that the leftperson listener, and likely even the reporter and editorship don’t even notice. As one fish said to the other, “Water? What water?”
Thx for the opening welcome and kind words, Tod. Unlike those for the mainpage, comments here in the basement get only the first handful of words onto the mainpage, and I wanted to start with something resembling a lede. When one is consigned to the basement, he gets on the mainpage however he can.
That’s a web page pointing to a web page pointing to a web page pointing to a web page pointing to a newspaper article. The newspaper is the only one doing any reporting. Instapundit’s entire contribution is the word “Sad”.
Tom – As I said, I do agree with your main point, and I had recognized the olive branch that discussed what NPR does well. But I don’t agree about pajamas media, which I think of as a source of commentary. I like commentary, and done well it can certainly be more entertaining than news, but I think news is necessary.
My concern about the success of FOX isn’t that it’s partisan. It’s that it’s all commentary, passing itself off as news – and doing it so successfully that others are now trying to emulate it’s model. In and of itself, I have no problem with this. But without a bedrock system real reporting, eventually all news will be variations of whatever the DNC, GOP or random corporation’s press release says it is. And that will be a very bad thing.
Fox sets off news and commentary better than MSNBC. CNN and NPR don’t even bother; it’s just one wave coming from your left.
But defending Fox is not a hill I want to die on at the moment–the discussion can be more fruitful if we ignore it and MSNBC as not-relevant.
As for the rightospere ala Instapundit, the only point would be that it’s that or nothing. Fox is Faux News and the leftosphere is proud to advertise how they’ve blocked it with their V-chips.
[Adult content. Heh heh.]
Tom, are you familiar with Freedom Watch? It started off as exclusively on the Internet covering news from a libertarian perspective, whether this perspective overlapped with the left or the right. But I’ve noticed as the show has occupied an increasingly profitable time slot for Fox, the content covered has gradually moved towards right talking points. The show’s libertarian streak has remained unchanged, but half of this gets neglected in favor of common ground with the GOP.
Tom, I think you’re arguing a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying FOX is evil, or that they don’t tell people the difference between their news shows or their commentary. I’m saying they don’t do any actual investigation in their news – and neither does CNN or MSNBC.
This has nothing to do with political bias. It has to do with getting any information that people in power aren’t thrilled about you knowing.
Gents: We are in agreement about original investigative reporting, and that most of our infotainment is a mash-up of the same small pool of factoids.
See the Krugman and Ozone Fairy post elsewhere, however. Even that much doesn’t get a well-rounded exposure. I’d be surprised if anyone left of Limbaugh has even heard the argument.
As for NPR’s reporting itself, eliciting attacks on the Tea Party from Julian Bond hardly seems worthy.
[Has the amount of copy from the Recent Comments on the upper left-hand margin of this page got smaller since I mentioned it? It’s much smaller than the other sub-blogs, don’t you think?]
Mr. Carr, NPR’s in the docket, not Fox. But I have no problem accepting your observation uncritically. You’re an honest fella, and what you describe seems more likely than not.
Tom, that’s true that the topic here is NPR. I felt the story of Freedom Watch was an example of the obverse of what you describe happening.
Stipulated, Mr. Carr, although a weekend show on the Fox Jr. Channel [the business one, right?] is not remotely the current crisis.
All tu quoques stipulated in advance, but that would rather be my point, that NPR is the obverse of Instapundit more than any sense or definition of center.
Josh Marshall’s TPM employs reporters who do honest-to-God reporting. They broke, for instance, the story about the US Attorney firings.
That furthers my point, Mr. Schilling: yet more reporting by the left for the left. The chances of malfeasance on the right going unreported are much smaller than the vice-versa. Why do we need NPR in its present configuration again?
My props for the right reporting outside the lefty bubble have nothing to do with TPM or other leftish sources that do a good job. The question at hand is the limited amount of non-left perspective that makes it through the bubble. And Scott makes a key point about the topic of the MLK memorial being perverted into yet another unscrupulous attack on the Tea Party. Water, what water?
Reporting, that is generating of new facts for consideration, is a good thing. The solution isn’t less of it on the left, it’s more of it elsewhere. And, as I mention below, the only actual reporting in your example was done by a local newspaper. I’d love to see the large, well-financed right-wing media do more reporting and less blathering.
And the left would still refuse to listen to it, as they do now. That would be the point of my little thingee here, that many believe NPR fulfills their MDR for fair-and-balanced information consumption, when it’s really just more cheese & pretzels.
Re the add on the OP: it may be that the technology of the new eco-regs that Obama nixed doesn’t even exist. Put that in yr NPR and smoke it, because what we heard the day before there never contemplated anything but that the GOP was flailing on something that would have no positive effect.
http://patterico.com/2011/09/03/paul-krugman-and-the-ozone-fairy/
Huge gulf between NPR and reality, as it turned out. I wonder how they’ll set the record straight.
;-}
And the left would still refuse to listen to it, as they do now.
If you don’t build it, they for sure won’t come.
Welcome, Mr. Schilling. Your disabusement starts here.
Tod,
I basically agree with you. (How boring is that?)
I enjoy the occasional NPR show and for a while I was addicted to Radio Lab. I downloaded a whole slew of their old shows and tortured my family with them while on a long drive. I found them enjoyable but the family found them to be a little pretentious and overly dramatic.
-Robert
TVD, it took me a while to appreciate where you were coming from. I’m looking forward to reading your posts.
Mr. Carr, that where I’m coming from should be the least hard to divine is troubling. I do take great pains to state my case with neutral language rather than beg the question with it. But sometimes I wonder if Mr Heidegger’s first instinct [below] isn’t correct, and such civility is an unrequited courtesy to the reader [see various other remarks].
Welcome, sir!
My love for NPR has much to do with it being compared not to the internet or to Fox News but to Jessie Jams and the Wyld Bunch Morning Zoo!
“WE’VE GOT YOUR NEWS! PARIS HILTON IN JAIL AGAIN! MICHAEL JACKSON FAKED DEATH, SOURCES SAY! ALSO WHAT IS RICKY MARTIN UP TO THESE DAYS!!! BACK AFTER THESE ADS FOR PROACTIV LOTION!”
You turn to NPR and you get soothing adult tones. Hi. I’m Steve Inskeep. And I’m Renee Montagne. Violence in the West Bank today as an unarmed Palestinian man rammed his car through a vehicle checkpoint. Israeli soldiers shot and killed the driver. We go to Lourdes Navarro for more…
See? Isn’t that soothing compared to Paris Hilton and Michael Jackson and Ricky Martin? You’re not even asking about the “unarmed” adjective. It’s just grownups talking. Biased? Of course. They’re adults, though. That’s not nothing.
There’s a local talk show on San Francisco’s NPR station. There’s no question that the host is a lefty. He’ll often have panel shows with lots of viewpoints, and while’s he’s polite and respectful to all of the guests, he’s likely to be more sympathetic to the ones on the left, and more likely to challenge the ones on the right.
But think about this: many viewpoints are represented, and all treated with respect. Where, outside NPR, are you going to hear that? Not in the vast wasteland of commercial political talk shows.
One day, when I had only a half hour for lunch, I said “maybe I’ll see what AM talk radio is doing…” and I happened to turn on the radio as Rush told us that he’d be right back.
I drove from work, to the Wendy’s, made it through the drive-through, made it back to the building and turned off the car before I heard Rush’s voice again. 15-20 minutes of commercials.
NPR, for all its faults, has never done that to me.
Oh it really does, though. It just does it twice a year, in one week blocks.
Only the once or twice a year I find myself thinking “I’m going to listen to some public radio!”
Oh, yes. *THAT*.
Even that isn’t so bad as yet another commercial for Garlique or Gold.
I will tell a story from a recent (two years ago, now? Maybe?) NPR fund drive. I was driving to work and one of the hosts was talking about his parents being tea baggers and how full of hate they were and isn’t it great that we have a place like NPR? Please support us!
I forgot to donate since then.
My pledge drive story is that the PBS station played a couple of hours of Monty Python, a Marx Brothers movie, and a Woody Allen movie, and if you want to show your appreciation for this kind of programming, you’ll donate now. I did. Guess how often they did a full night of comedy again?
I fell in love with PBS because of Doctor Who. Then pledge week ended and they went back to Jane Austen.
turned off the car before I heard Rush’s voice again
Count your blessings.
Mike, you NEED Rush!
Mike:
You must not been listening to Diane rehm, she only has lefties on.
To be honest, my favorite NPR shows are Car Talk and Fresh Air, and Terri Gross is much better when she stays away from politics.
I’m a “Wait, Wait” addict meself. Smug left, still very fishing funny.
I also listen to All Things Considered regularly. The Original Post [OP] was not a drive-by based on a driveby, in fact it was based on nuance, not outrage. TVD would not devote an entire post to a limited sample.
I wouldn’t let him.
I listen to the radio in the car. Car Talk is taking the kids to church, Fresh Air is driving home from work. (Jim Rome is driving to work. I need to do a guest post sometime about how he’s an old-fashioned moralist disguised as a shock jock.) For Wait, Wait, either I’m not traveling or there’s a ball game on.
Car Talk is a waste. They’re not funny, unless you count them laughing at their own jokes, a self-supplied laugh track. There are many and better duplications on self-paying [commercial] radio around the same time. I shut them off between Scott and Wait, Wait. [I do miss Liane.]
Which is to substantiate that I actually listen to NPR.
Listened yet again to Garrison Keillor, and he is mildly funny, and sings poorly. His Lake Wobegon shtick carries a semi-sneer toward midwestern values and reliably churns a knowing laugh from his Prius-driving audience. He will not be missed, esp at the taxpayers’ expense.
Commenter Scott has noted perhaps the strongest indictment about how NPR goes about its business, just from this past week: an interview about the MLK memorial perverted into a race-baiting attack on the Tea Party by Julian Bond.
This will not do.
TVD:
I agree, there is too little car and too much talk.
De gustibus: I think Tom and Ray are funny. And they do know their cars; I sometimes use the show to teach basic car knowledge.
I saw Keillor live a few years ago. He was reading from his then-latest book, which was about the foibles of stereotypical Marinites (people who get aromatherapy for their pets). This was in Marin, so he was faux-combative. Again very funny, in my opinion.
And I’ll be all sensitive about the Tea Party’s feelings sometime after I stop hearing that as a non-small-town, non-Christian, non-conservative, I’m not a real American. (I’m thinking of having a T-short printed: “DFH, and Proud of it!”)
get real.
http://templeofmut.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/tea-partiers-sons-of-bitches-according-to-obama-rally-speaker/
Oh my heavens, a teamster said something rough? I can’t even imagine.
At least it wasn’t the editor of Commentary.
“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong…”–Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa
And you’re talking about stupid T-shirts? The astonishing gap in perspective makes further engagement impossible. Thx for your comments.
Lock and load!
Let us *PLEASE* not have another discussion on the importance of civility in discourse. Those make me want to puke.
I’m all for civility. The tarring of entire groups because they contain uncivil member, or even members who have been seen to be uncivil at times, not so much.
“The tarring of entire groups because they contain uncivil member, or even members who have been seen to be uncivil at times, not so much.”
I think that my head just melted from the irony overload.
I was gonna let it slide, Mr. Duck, but yeah.
Tom – you know this has already been debunked, right? Not that I want to defend Hoffa… but you do know, right?
By this I mean your link to Hoffa calling for Tea Partier blood.
RTod, can’t debunk a point I didn’t make. The point of the OP was far more modest. Far more, if you think about it.
Actually, when I dragged Hoffa in—who was onstage right before the president spoke—it had just happened and I didn’t know a big deal would come of it. I was merely contrasting it to the importance of a slogan on a T-shirt.
There is a substantive difference, of more than degree. My mistake was engaging the T-shirt argument in the first place. My point was simply that NPR shades the POV, perhaps even unintentionally, and that their listeners may think they’re getting the whole story, but they aren’t—a modest argument.
There’s video here… He does seem to say the things people are saying he said.
What was “debunked”?
Tom – Got it.
JB – There was a big stink this week about this comment, or rather by the way the comment was reported. The original quote has Hoffa talking about the workers getting out the vote to “take these sones of bitches out” of office, presumably meaning the GOP. THe stink happened when a cable news network, shortly after a reporter explained that’s what Hoffa was referring to, ran an edited clip of the tape and began reporting that Hoffa was urging wooers to take out citizens who were tea party members. It is the edited story with revised story line that made it’s way around the right-end internet.
I should note that it is my understanding that the news network did later go back to reporting the comment as it was initially and correctly reported.
Good Lord, Hoffa called opposition pols SOBs? he should have called them something civil, like Saddam Hussein.
TVD-
I’m curious if you have any facts disputing what NPR put forth, namely that the pipeline won’t do much to decrease America’s need for foreign oil or that the Republicans plan to end certain regulations won’t create jobs. I understand the reason to be skeptical of a left-leaning news organization offering left-leaning conclusions, because of the potential for bias, self-servingness, etc. But, if that skepticism can’t be substantiated, what do we make of that? Maybe NPR took those positions and “told” us those things not because that is what they think ro want to be true or because they are ignoring half the argument… but maybe because they are the truth?
One of the things that bothers me most in the left-media, right-media nonsense is that people from one side or the other will immediately dismiss the claims of media groups on the other side as schilling, without actually parsing the facts. Sometimes left-media groups offer left-leaning conclusions because that is the right conclusion to draw in that situation. Just like right-media groups offer right-leaning conclusions because that is the right conclusion to draw in those situations.
BSK–Answered before you asked. It was what they didn’t ask, noted infra in the OP.
No, making a mush and a wash of it all is not wisdom or sense or fact. There is plenty of substance here that cannot be merely talked away.
If you want to tu quoque Faux News and NPR, you might have a buyer here.
😉
HAAA! It truly is an outrage TvD. I mean just look at this merciless slaughter–daily, monthly, yearly, millions of the of the infirmed and afflicted drop drop dead while we just casually sit by and watch this carnage happen.
When will the pro-lifers really do something significant and try to stop the heartless butchery of the seasoned elderly. A compassionate start I would suggest, would be closing all nursing homes, hospice care, geriatric services. And remove the word, “death” from every dictionary.
No longer will we idly stand on the sidelines, and watch 56,597, 034 human beings just drop dead every year before our very own eyes. Enough is enough. Genocide is not a spectator sort. I submit Social Security has killed more human beings than all the wars put together. This will stop. This MUST stop! God did not create mankind to die.
Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And goatherders get lonely, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWaMJ331oYM
Can you be more specific? I read the post and while I see the section you refer to, I’m not sure it does what I am asking you to do. Yes, there were questions unasked. No interview is entirely exhaustive; there are always questions that could have been asked. Plus we don’t know what was left on the editing room floor that might have factored into the conclusions but not been provided as evidence. What I am trying to get at is what evidence do you have that in these specific instances, NPR’s conclusions were driven by their ideological desires than an actual balanced accounting of the facts?
For instance, critics of ESPN as having an East Coast bias might point to the Phillies, Yankees, and Red Sox dominating their MLB Power Rankings. And, yes, it is true that there is evidence of an East Coast bias with ESPN and, yes, it is true that the Phillies, Yanks, and Sox all hail from the East Coast. But it is also true that they have the three best records in the league. So, while an East Coast bias might exist, hanging a hat on that argument isn’t particularly sound, especially when no counter to the placement of those three teams is offered.
In other words, “reality has a left-wing bias”.
Again, answered infra before you asked, BSK. For old times’ sake, back when we had cooperative discussions:
Now without disputing the truth of what we learned [or were told], what we have here is that the house wins all ties, “the house” being NPR, and what we have here is a tie, a push. Minimize the effect of the pipeline or the forestalling of new regulations to near-zero effect, and it’s a wash, a non-issue, and protecting the environment—a self-evident good—wins by default.
And this is how it’s done rhetorically, without lying. In Blackjack, the house has a minimal advantage of a half-percent. If you change the rules so the house wins every push on 17, its advantage rises to almost 2 percent, and all of sudden it’s the death of 1000 cuts.
All of these issues are a percent or two either way, a billion here, 1000 jobs there. That’s the point, BSK: this is a formal argument, not a policy argument.
Still think your using loaded language and have yet to demonstrate that NPR has a deliberate, calculated bias that informs their reporting.
Chrysler designated the 1929 Desoto as the “K” series and early advertising featured the name “Conqueror” along with a Latin motto, Multum pro Parvo (“much for little”). Introduced to the public on August 4th this mid-priced six-cylinder car was intended to plug the gap between the fledging low-priced four-cylinder Plymouth and premium namesake Chryslers.
The Honda Civic, the star car for whom the tour is names, has its own following and offers five distinct models including a hybrid. Your Honda dealerships in Atlanta can show you the entire array. The Civic models were all recently revamped both inside and out and sport many tech-friendly amenities.