2nd Amendment on NPR tomorrow

[SFC JeffJ]

Tomorrow morning on the Diane Rheams (sp?) show, the focus is apparently going to be on what the 2nd amendment "really" means. I have no idea what the position is going to be, but I'm going to be ready to call in. Just wanted to spread the word about it.

Jeff

 

[Carol]

11:00

Saul Cornell: "A Well-Regulated Militia" (Oxford)

Guest host: Susan Page
A constitutional historian discusses the Founding Fathers' original intent for the Second Amendment, and talks about why neither side of the contemporary gun control debate seems to understand what the amendment is all about.
Guests

Saul Cornell, Associate Professor of History at Ohio State University, Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute, author of "The Other Founders," and editor of "Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?"


http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/02.php


The italics were added by me.

This is what drives me nuts about NPR (especially as a former broadcaster myself). The classic NPR way of addressing a controversial issue was to show points of view from different sides. It was hardly conclusive, but it gave the complexity of a controversial point the respect it deserves and also gave the listenership the respect they deserved (by letting the individual draw their own conclusions).

They have largely gotten away from this style of journalism and slipped in to a self-indulgent you-mortals-can't-possibly-understand presentation that I just find to be vile...whether I agree with it or not. It's a real shame. A well-researched piece reflecting different academic points could be a very well done piece of journalism.

Instead, somehow I feel that I'll be dismissed as an idiot.

Ah well. Best I get back to figuring out the finer points of packet-switched signaling in South American intracontinental voice over IP call processing using different national variants at the near and far end. That I can understand. :idunno:

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Thanks for the info. I was just about to look that up myself when I got the email about your post Carol.

I also agree with you about NPR. It's better than the other news radio we get around here though.


Jeff

 

[Explorer]

This is what drives me nuts about NPR (especially as a former broadcaster myself). The classic NPR way of addressing a controversial issue was to show points of view from different sides. It was hardly conclusive, but it gave the complexity of a controversial point the respect it deserves and also gave the listenership the respect they deserved (by letting the individual draw their own conclusions).

They have largely gotten away from this style of journalism and slipped in to a self-indulgent you-mortals-can't-possibly-understand presentation that I just find to be vile...whether I agree with it or not. It's a real shame. A well-researched piece reflecting different academic points could be a very well done piece of journalism.

Instead, somehow I feel that I'll be dismissed as an idiot.

Hi Carol,

We former broadcasters tend to see eye to eye on this issue. I was once on a panel of news broadcasters and the local public radio anchor made the claim that NPR reports the news right down the middle. I've never heard so much laughter at a news panel discussion before or since. Even the network folks were falling out of their chairs!

 

[Blindside]

So did anyone listen to the show?

 

[w.kaer]

Ah well. Best I get back to figuring out the finer points of packet-switched signaling in South American intracontinental voice over IP call processing using different national variants at the near and far end. That I can understand. :idunno:

Ummmm...Huh?