When Rush Limbaugh first appeared (to my vantage point) in the early 1990s, I listened in a few times. My conclusion: I was glad for the "alternative" point of view (the more then better, IMO), but I found the man himself to be obnoxious; he came off as a self-centered egotist. (Perhaps it takes one to know one, eh?) But he was also frequently right on some points. Even when he was wrong, I was glad he was giving the mainstream media a bit of viewpoint competition: I'm an ardent supporter of competition and giving people choices.

In the past years, voices have been screaming about the need for a liberal "voice" in the media. (Odd, since the "voices" saying that were constantly heard in the major media.) In particular, it was lamented there was a need for a liberal voice in a "talk" radio format.

So Air America -- and a few other similar hosts -- appeared. As with Rush, I also listened in. My reaction was: Wow, these people are worse than Rush. Rush was an annoying egotist, but he was at least generally accurate. Some of the voices I heard made me shiver with concern, so hate-filled was their narrative. I heard a late night radio host rant on and on about how evil and hateful Christians were, as though it were some dark conspiracy. I heard Janine Garolofo assert repeatedly, with the radio equivalent of a straight face, that ordinary conservatives -- not just our leadership -- loved to cause suffering, stick to to the poor, and suck up to oil companies.

(Yes indeed, this is a regular occurrence: "Before we close in prayer, let me ask: did we learn anything from our study of Isaiah 53 about how to give more money to oil companies?" Many families discuss this very topic over the dinner table: "So Judy, how was soccer practice today? Honey, this meatloaf is grreat! Oh, and did we all remember to find a way to give more power to oil companies today?")

And the information I heard was generally, um, innacurate. To be charitable.

Air America is dying. Aside from their apparently unpalatable format, the reason I see, ironicly, is that they can't compete with a much more qualified and competant "liberal"/"progressive" radio voice: NPR. NPR occupies at least one well-placed slot (or more) in every major urban market. NPR is an FM station, so the signal is clearer and quieter than Air America's AM radio broadcast. And, in many markets, NPR is the only 24-hour non-music format found on the FM dial.

So they have an utterly unique, even enviable position.

To the ear, NPR sounds sensible, sometimes fair, and even, at moments, witty. Unlike Air America, which even many "the faithful" apparently won't listen to, I know a lot of conservatives who frequently listen to NPR -- so they're reaching their political opposites. And, if you don't read too broadly, or listen too carefully, their news sounds credible and unbiased.

My undoing is that I listen to the other side also.

Example: I haven't listened to radio much recently but I decided to give NPR a whirl again this morning. The first news story began by asserting a group of Marines had killed a group of Iraqis "in cold blood" -- which means, of course, with cool premeditation, knowing perfectly well they were innocent.

The way the story opened there was no equivocation or ambiguity: It wasn't that "some alleged" these Marines had killed people in cold blood: they had done it. There was no hesitation in the language at all. This is a news story; that's a fact.

Having also heard a conservative voice (James Taranto) talk about the same story, I knew they were echoing and propagating -- unattributed -- the Democratic leadship's characterization of the story. Which is a fine way to cover the news if you are a party organ -- but it's certainly nothing like journalism, to which NPR pretends.

In particular, they were echoing, word for word, Democratic Rep. John Murtha's allegation that "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood", without letting their listeners know this is a one-sided characterization, by a political partisan, of an ongoing investigation which has not yet reached it's conclusion.

Yet, as with Murtha, before their own story was over, they had contradicted themselves, the last line to the effect of: "perhaps there was confusion and things got out of control." Huh? Perhaps? If there was "confusion" then it's hardly a case of cold-blooded killing, which is unemotional and, in the minds of most, done with full knowlege that people were innocent. "Cold blood" is, in fact, the exact opposite of "out of control." And if it's "perhaps", then why lead with a certainty: "Marines killed innocent Iraqis in cold blood"?

Now, let me be clear: I don't know the story here. Perhaps these Marines are innocent; perhaps they are guilty. I'm certainly open to either finding. But NPR presumed the Marines were guilty (despite the fact that this was contradicted by their own later discussion of the events) and parroted, unattributed, the Democratic leadership's talking points in their opening to the story.

Again, that's not necessarily and invalid point of view: history may even show it to be correct. But at this moment, its partisan editorial material, not journalism.