I will preface these comments by saying that I listen regularly to National Public Radio, and because I grew up listening to NPR and believe that it should be ideologically balanced (not neutral - that's impossible with human editors), I want to see it improve. Currently however, there is not much to praise in that media monolith.

When was the last time you heard a Daniel Schorr editorial that was NOT summarized thus: "I do not like George W. Bush. I do not like him in the White House, I do not like him, he's a louse. I do not like him on attack, I do not like him in Iraq." It's the same editorial, re-worked every week to sound different. He can barely disguise his pervasive hatred of the president beneath the veneer of respectability he retains from years of fine work. The veneer is wearing thin, though, and I find myself at a loss for an answer every week when I ask myself, "What new information is being communicated in this piece?"

One of the clearest examples of NPR's ideological vehemence was this fall's trashing of Ken Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for his alleged attempts to promote the Bush agenda and swing public broadcasting to the right. HA! Oh, just in case anyone is suspecting a liberal conspiracy here, NPR wants you to know that an "internal" investigation was conducted finding that Tomlinson was guilty of ethics violations, such as trying to moderate the hard left ideological bent of NPR with conservative public affairs shows. In other words, "We investigated ourselves, and found that we were innocent and he was wrong."

What do you think? Does NPR really reflect the country in which we live, or does it more resemble the opinions of a New York - LA - DC media elite? Is it right for public monies to be used to promote an ideology inconsistent with common mores and beliefs? And finally, do NPR and other mainstream media outlets use their pulpit as a means of not just reporting news, but also trying to influence the outcome of events?