NPR fires Juan Williams.

[amadeus]

Where is your indignation over this firing by Fox News?

FNC doesn't receive public funding.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And neither does NPR directly.

From page 5:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9808667&postcount=87

I somewhat hope the reactionaries do manage to stop the 2% that NPR receives indirectly. Then they can't whine about it anymore.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/npr-ceo-we-dont-need-public-funding/

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller was asked if NPR could survive without federal subsidies by Rodney Ho at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and she made it pretty clear that public subsidies are inconsequential to them:

Q: Could NPR live without federal funding?

A: Let’s go on a sidebar. There’s a misperception about federal funding and public radio. There’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They receive $90 million a year and a vast majority goes to member public radio stations. Those stations pull in more than $1 billion collectively a year. It’s significant and important but not even close to the lion’s share of revenues for public radio. NPR gets no allocation from CPB. Zero. We are a private 501(c)3. We’ve had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That’s laughable. Have you listened to our shows? We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our total budget.

Q: What is your annual budget?

A: $160 million a year from station fees and dues, corporate underwriting, philanthropic contributions from individuals and corporation and earned income and earnings from our endowment.

 

[MobBoss]

And neither does NPR directly.

From page 5:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9808667&postcount=87

But indirectly it does.

In comparison, does FNC receive gov funding directly or indirectly?

 

[JollyRoger]

But indirectly it does.

In comparison, does FNC receive gov funding directly or indirectly?

Cable news channels are the direct beneficiaries of FCC rules that allow cable operators to bundle services, requiring every cable subscriber to pay a fee to MSNBC,CNN and Fox News – whether they want them or not. Those subscriber fees are more important than advertisements in funding the bottom line of all three cable news outlets.

http://communicationleadership.usc.edu/pubs/Funding%20the%20News.pdf

That's about the same degree of indirectness as NPR's "funding"

 

[Berzerker]

That's choosing to fail. Because it's not true that in a market without regulations that consumers matter much to seller decisions.

I cant speak to your interpretation and satisfying consumers is what its all about, but we have rarely had an actual free market, not one regulated by consumers anyway. Slavery, then Jim Crow followed by another bunch of laws - civil rights - has been most of our history. You can argue in favor of continued govt laws to suppress "racism" but recognize the govt has always been there requiring the racism, not the market. And if people are free to vote with their $$$ (they weren't under slavery and Jim Crow), businesses that discriminate unfairly will be punished by consumers...or bailed out by politicians.

Not really, no. You might have an occasional act of violence because someone resists arrest, but its certainly the exception, and not the norm. Most bench warrants are reconciled without any violence what-so-ever.

Thats the point, if you dont go peacefully they're taking you violently. We know this to be true and thats why most of us dont resist. That doesn't mean warrants aint backed by violence, it means they are...

No, I am telling you that the majority of cases dont result in violence of any kind. Sorry to bust your ideal of jack-booted police cracking heads, but seriously, the vast majority of cases are handled without any violence what-so-ever.

We're not even on the same page, Mobby. This aint about jack-booted thugs or how often people are beat up during arrests, its about the nature of govt (you know, where philosophy meets the real world). Laws are enforced with violence (or the threat thereof, for the nth time).

Well thats an easy one. Comply with whatever the cop tells you and you dont get beat upon. Fairly simple concept.

Some people are stupid. /shrug.

Thats good advice, and irrelevant.

Violence is the last recourse, not the first option. Thats my point. You make it sound like violence is a given...it isnt.

But violence (or the threat thereof) is there, thats my point.

 

[Cutlass]

I cant speak to your interpretation and satisfying consumers is what its all about, but we have rarely had an actual free market, not one regulated by consumers anyway. Slavery, then Jim Crow followed by another bunch of laws - civil rights - has been most of our history. You can argue in favor of continued govt laws to suppress "racism" but recognize the govt has always been there requiring the racism, not the market. And if people are free to vote with their $$$ (they weren't under slavery and Jim Crow), businesses that discriminate unfairly will be punished by consumers...or bailed out by politicians.

So all those times the market did racism despite the government is something you pretend does not exist?

 

[Berzerker]

So all those times the market did racism despite the government is something you pretend does not exist?

I cant speak to your interpretation, but I said consumers will punish employers who discriminate unfairly. And that is true... Now you expect the market to make racism disappear? I think your faith in government surpasses mine in the market.

"The market did racism"? You mean a racist mistreated someone?

 

[Cutlass]

I cant speak to your interpretation, but I said consumers will punish employers who discriminate unfairly. And that is true... Now you expect the market to make racism disappear? I think your faith in government surpasses mine in the market.

"The market did racism"? You mean a racist mistreated someone?

If you choose to believe the truly silly fiction that consumers will punish consumers will punish employers who discriminate unfairly, then you have no concept of what a market is, much less how it works. I don't expect the market to make racism disappear. However, the market will engage in racism if the government does not put a stop to it. That's just human nature.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://communicationleadership.usc.edu/pubs/Funding%20the%20News.pdf

That's about the same degree of indirectness as NPR's "funding"

Ah. But being effectively federally subsidized by laws that they likely got passed by paying off their corrupt ultraconservative cronies in Washington isn't anywhere near as evil as public radio stations paying tiny fees to NPR to air their product. Anybody can see that.

 

[amadeus]

I opt in to cable services, I don't opt in to paying taxes.

 

[Holycannoli]

You do have to love that George Soros is spending almost $2 million to hire 100 NPR reporters. They (the media and liberals) say nothing about a left-wing billionaire owning the media but they love to complain about Rupert Murdoch.

Now Juan Williams is fired. He simply doesn't fit their left-wing agenda. They can say whatever they want, but they were just waiting for an opportunity to fire him. NPR is becoming left-wing and I bet if they continue to do so they'll go the way of Air America. They really need to be careful. Accepting funds from George Soros certainly doesn't help.

 

[MobBoss]

Thats the point, if you dont go peacefully they're taking you violently. We know this to be true and thats why most of us dont resist. That doesn't mean warrants aint backed by violence, it means they are...

By that same logic everything in life is backed by violence...

We're not even on the same page, Mobby. This aint about jack-booted thugs or how often people are beat up during arrests, its about the nature of govt (you know, where philosophy meets the real world). Laws are enforced with violence (or the threat thereof, for the nth time).

Yeah, well, order has to have something in order to make something out of chaos. But fwiw, I think most people are generally sheep...not wolves, so the actual need for violence isnt really as great as you make it out to be.

Thats good advice, and irrelevant.

No, its not irrelevant, as it points out that violence simply isnt a given, regardless.

 

[amadeus]

I think it's interesting how George Soros plans to hire 100 people with only $1.8 million. I'm sure you can get a lot of good, talented people for $18,000/year.

 

[Archbob]

Fox new's bigoted commentary typically isn't compatible with NPR's higher journalistic standards.

Journalists aren't supposed to insert their own political bias into the news. Ideally, they are supposed to present news objectively.

Define 'objective'. I don't really want to define his comment but it was Muslims to hijacked and blew up planes a couple of years back and have continued doing such acts in Western countries.

Of course, not all Muslims do such crap(as in 99.99% of the don't) but know what happened in the past and whats going on today, it is not an irrational fear.

 

[Berzerker]

If you choose to believe the truly silly fiction that consumers will punish consumers will punish employers who discriminate unfairly, then you have no concept of what a market is, much less how it works. I don't expect the market to make racism disappear. However, the market will engage in racism if the government does not put a stop to it. That's just human nature.

So you would keep buying your food from a store that wont hire people based on race? Are you a truly silly fiction? But you have no problem indicting the rest of us?

By that same logic everything in life is backed by violence...

Why is everything backed by violence? How do you compare violating laws and being arrested with everything else in life? Thats your logic, not mine...

Yeah, well, order has to have something in order to make something out of chaos. But fwiw, I think most people are generally sheep...not wolves, so the actual need for violence isnt really as great as you make it out to be.

You're the one arguing about the frequency of violence, not me... Thats your strawman, I said enforcing laws relies on violence (or the threat thereof). Do you understand what a threat of violence is? Its there when you're being arrested for violating a law. Resist and it'll become violence. Jesus H Christ, Mobby, are you having a senior moment?

No, its not irrelevant, as it points out that violence simply isnt a given, regardless.

Yes, your argument is irrelevant Mobby. Its a strawman, I never said every arrest results in violence.

 

[JollyRoger]

I opt in to cable services, I don't opt in to paying taxes.

You opt into paying taxes. You could avoid net federal taxes by limiting your income.

 

[Ayatollah So]

My understanding (from reading CQ today) was that there was some previous history of NPR being unhappy about William's comments on Fox, readers had written several hundreds letters complaining, and that this was the last straw.

It's a stupid (and a little bigoted) thing to say, but by itself, it shouldn't be enough to lose your job.

I agree it shouldn't be enough to lose your job, but I don't agree that it was bigoted. Williams was quoted out of context. Here's what he went on to say:

The damning video clip of Williams, like the damning clip of Sherrod, cuts off the speaker just as he's about to reverse course. According to the full transcript, immediately after saying, "I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams continues: "But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam." That continuation has been conveniently snipped from the excerpt.
A few seconds later, Williams challenges O'Reilly's suggestion that "the Muslims attacked us on 9/11." Williams points out how wrong it would be to generalize similarly about Christians:
Hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals—very obnoxious—you don't say first and foremost, "We got a problem with Christians." That's crazy.

So when Williams admits he's nervous around Muslims, it's part of a bigger point where he's asserting that we should respect Muslims' rights even if we feel nervous.

And where did I learn about the context that puts Juan Williams's remark in a much better light? On which conservative bastion media outlet?

Why, NPR OF COURSE.

You can't control how you feel. I've got arachnaphobia. I can look at a spider which I know, scientifically, to be completely harmless, and still feel fear. That doesn't mean I have to squish it. I'm a rational being. Well, to some extent

Is Williams bigoted because he feels fear? If so, almost everyone is bigoted against some group or other. The important thing is how you respond to such emotions. If you can do the right thing despite your emotions, the problem is manageable.

2. If we're gonna sack people for sayin stuff when their job is to say stuff, I suppose it's good that it's become more equal-opportunity by being extended to anti-Muslim comments as well as heretical opinions about Israel?

Equal opportunity unfreedom is still a bad idea. It should be extremely difficult to lose a reporting/commentary job because of what you say on media programs other than the one giving you said job.

Who cares what the facts actually are, right?

Are those the only programs on NPR? Why choose only those 4 out of the 11 news/talk shows offered? Is only using 4 shows in this study an acurate representation of the entire 11 news/talk shows on NPR?

But take a closer look and you’ll see that those 4 programs have a VAST majority of the listeners to NPR. While the actual number of programs seems low, if you look at the big picture you’ll see that these make up almost 80% of total listeners.

Darn, you beat me to it! I recognized those 4 as the main news-oriented programs on NPR. So I'm not surprised at the 80% statistic.

Nor am I surprised that MobBoss completely shrugged off your well-established, completely hitting-the-nail-on-the-head point. It's comforting to know that there are some constants in the universe.

For researchers with limited time and resources - i.e., almost any - going to the few biggest news shows is exactly how such a study should be done. It's like the 80/20 rule in industrial operations engineering - you study the 20% of cases that account for 80% of the profits (or costs, or QA failures, or whatever).

Political Correctness is killing free speech.

You mean by defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because rightwing activists don't like PBS and NPR? I see your point

 

[Cutlass]

I opt in to cable services, I don't opt in to paying taxes.

Then opt out of benefiting from what the government does. In other words, get out of the country, because that is the only possibility of not benefiting from what the government does.

 

[Formaldehyde]

NPR's Mara Liasson Takes Heat Over Fox News Appearances

On the heels of the controversy over Juan Williams' comments on Fox News Channel about Muslims that cost him his job with National Public Radio, Mara Liasson, NPR's award-winning political correspondent, is taking heat over her appearances on Fox.

The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America argues on its blog that NPR needs to address the "thorny issue" of Liasson's work for Fox in light of the Williams controversy. Senior fellow Eric Boehlert stressed that Williams, a frequent guest on The O'Reilly Factor, had a far more problematic history with Fox than Liasson. Many NPR listeners have complained about Williams' statements on Fox for years, and he was asked not to identify himself as an NPR journalist while appearing on Fox. Liasson, however, appears on Special Report with Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday, shows that are a far cry from Bill O'Reilly's controversial talk show.

NPR declined to comment for this story.

"I'm not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox," Boehlert writes. "I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox."

Do You Know a Pundit When You See One?

Those guidelines, which Boehlert excerpted, say that NPR management can refuse to allow journalists to appear on other media if they believe it will harm the network's reputation. Also, NPR journalists are not allowed to participate in shows that "encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis." That's a tough one, though. Just as one man's trash is another person's treasure, the same holds true for "punditry" and "fact-based analysis." It can be hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.

Sponsored Links

Liasson has appeared on Fox talk shows since 1997. NPR managers have reportedly expressed concerns about her appearances on the cable channel. Outsiders were concerned too: Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote, "Respectable journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs." She has not taken the hint.

Perhaps it's because she is more circumspect than Williams. Liasson also can argue that the Fox shows where she appears don't make NPR look bad and are respectful exchanges of ideas rather than shout-fests. Before the Williams issue, NPR was probably afraid to address the subject with Liasson out of fear that she might exit in a huff and invite an avalanche of negative publicity over NPR's supposed liberal bias.

Problems With the Juan Williams Precedent

Admittedly, the case against Williams was odd. Given NPR's stance against shows that "encourage punditry," how was Williams able to appear on The O'Reilly Factor for years? Given the emphasis on strong opinions on the show, it's no surprise that he felt comfortable enough to admit that seeing people dressed in Muslim garb on airplanes scares him. He vehemently denied -- on FoxNews.com -- that he is a bigot and insisted that his ouster by NPR boss Ellen Weiss during a phone conversation came as a shock.

"To say the least, this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free-flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country," Williams writes. "But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy. I say an ideological battle because my comments on `The O'Reilly Factor' are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don't notice that I am challenging Bill O'Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity."

Williams will no longer have anything to keep him from such endeavors. He is now a full-time contributor to Fox with a new multi-year contract with the News Corp. (NWS) network. Tonight, he will appear as a guest on The O'Reilly Factor and will be the show's guest host tomorrow.

"Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at FOX News in 1997," said Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News, in a statement. "He's an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by FOX News on a daily basis."

 

[DinoDoc]

Sorry. I missed that post.

I'll bet.

But the simple truth of the matter is that we don't have the personnel files for these people. We don't know what possible punitive action was taken in any of these cases. But we do know what the troubled history was for Williams from the statements of the head of the department who fired him.

Isn't that the point here? That NPR doesn't have a problem with its reporters or analysts expressing strong opinions to this day. It has a problem with its employees expressing them on Fox. Unless you can explain a meaningful difference between Nina Totenberg an honored reporter at NPR expressing tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly her opinions on controversial issues as she has and Juan Williams?