You know how when you wake up you’re kinda groggy. I woke up today exactly that way and took a peek at a few headlines kinda half asleep scanning a story or two. Then I read the end of this post concerning media outlets banning employees from the Stewart rally where a lady named Emily Bell of Columbia University commented thus about NPR:
She also noted that the case with NPR is different because it is partially publicly funded, which means that it is held to a higher standard to not appear biased.
“NPR has the right approach because they are in the business of serving the public,” She said. “I think it is perfectly consistent to require a higher standard of impartiality.”
There is nothing like a good shock to wake a person totally up. Nobody except a person involved in the liberal academia could have suggested that NPR holds itself to a “higher standard impartiality.”
All that being said I’d let them all go if they want to. I think that way when people read the story they can be aware of the bias of the author and can give that bias as much or as little weight as they think it deserves. No restriction but full disclosure.