NPR Fact-checking Themselves to Prove They Are Not Biased

NPR, after the Big Bird thing, might have thought it would be a good idea to attempt to appear unbiased. Of course, the concept of bias-free journalism in America today is akin to the dinosaurs – as in extinct. But, Edward Schumacher-Matos decided to take a stab at it by fact-checking the NPR fact-checkers.

Yes, that does smack of Monty Python’s “Department of Redundancy Department”, but hey, if that keeps Schumacher-Matos busy for a day, so be it. And, more importantly, his little exercise yielded some interesting statistics to consider. If you skipped the link above, that’s fine. I can understand if you don’t want to read liberal nonsense – that’s what I’m here for! Besides, what was written really wasn’t worth reading, until the end, when Schumacher-Matos presented his readers with some pie charts and bar graphs. See, it’s not just the liberal public that has trouble with words.

So, what was this great discovery he made? Low and behold, the NPR audience likes fact-checking interspersed with the reporting. At least that’s what the nifty pie charts indicated. Now, whether or not NPR could recognize a fact, even if it bit them, is a debate for another time. As for how often they want fact-checking, they want it daily, not just occasionally. I know, we’re talking about liberals here, but this is beyond political leanings – it is a matter of human nature. Yes, Schumacher-Matos and NPR took the time to poll their audience on something that theoretically should have been assumed by anyone that successfully completed Psychology 101 in college. Kudos guys, really!

But that’s just amusing. The really good stuff was in their nifty bar graph. On that one, they asked their audience what needed fact-checking the most. There were several categories, but the really striking thing is where liberal priorities lie. They want fact-checking of the candidates first – predictable. But, down near the bottom, just above fact-checking personal stories of voters, is fact-checking polls and national standings of the candidates. So, in liberal-land, it’s not really important if the polls are accurate (assuming that Obama is ahead, of course), and they really don’t care if people lie to them about where the candidates really stand on the electoral map. Thank you Schumacher-Matos! Really! That is very helpful information for us, on the conservative side of the spectrum. Carry on liberal comrades, and don’t worry if your left-biased polls are accurate or not!