NPR fires Juan Williams.

[Bugfatty300]

Ha ha.

He got Zumbo'ed.

Now we need a good Muslim to take him under his wing and show Juan the error of his ways.

 

[Cutlass]

But you want laws - violence, or the threat thereof - to make people hire and fire based on what you deem unfair. Isn't that why Rand Paul is taking heat? And when you say or imply "we" - libertarians - dont care about hiring practices, you are ignoring our argument - consumers' regulation of the free market - for non-violence in favor of your argument in favor of violence.

So failure is a choice you make?

 

[Disgustipated]

This is clearly O'Reilly's fault. I haven't read the transcript, but I'm sure Bill provoked that response.

Even if you believe such nonsense, no one should be dumb enough to say it on national television, that's why I feel Bill provoked that (he's good at provoking discussion). And yes he should be fired for being dumb. You need to realize you can't say controversial things on television.

 

[Murky]

The left is showing it's true colours.

The right-wing backlash against NPR shows their true colors. They don't want objective journalist taking audiences away from good ole' propagandist like Rush Limbaugh

 

[bhsup]

This is clearly O'Reilly's fault. I haven't read the transcript, but I'm sure Bill provoked that response.

You are responsible for what you say, nobody else.

 

[Ajidica]

When provoked or through leading questions you can be lead to say something you don't nescesarily agree with.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Its writing contributors have such conservatives listed as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, and Ralph Nader to name just a few.

AFAIK none of these people are even associated with NPR, much less "writing contributors".

The "problem" with NPR from a reactionary perspective is apparently that it is "elitist" in that it caters to a much more intelligent audience than talk radio or Fox News. Perhaps they should use a few more talking heads like O'Reilly and kept Williams so that people who are used to being fed sensationalistic propaganda instead of discussing current events in a rational and adult manner won't feel so left out.

Looking a just a few of the names I just mentioned, I dont see how they could avoid it...

In other words, you haven't? But that's not going to stop you from trying to attack the credibility of Common Dreams instead of actually addressing the issues?

And as FF alluded to earlier, why did you support the firing of "leftist" Helen Thomas for making a similar comment but you don't support the firing of Williams? Is it because Helen wasn't associated with NPR?

It's time to ban federal funding for Fox News

On the heels of calls by Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee to ban federal funding for NPR in the wake of Juan Williams' dismissal, I'd like to propose a ban on federal funding for Fox News.

Yes, I know that my proposal is absurd on its face. Fox News doesn't receive any direct funding from the federal government. But neither does NPR. Yes, you read that right: NPR gets absolutely no direct federal funding. Zilch, nada, zippo.

Despite that fact, Palin and Huckabee can try to hang their hat on this indirect source of federal funding: NPR receives dues payments from member stations. Collectively, those member stations have revenue of about one billion dollars, including roughly ninety million dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn receives federal funding. In all, these indirect sources account for about two percent of NPR's budget. And if they really want to stretch, in any given year NPR may receive competitive grants from entities which receive federal funding, but those grants are available to anyone who competes for them that account for perhaps four percent of NPR's budget.

But the bottom-line is that NPR receives no direct federal funding. In other words, when Huckabee and Palin call for eliminating direct federal funding of NPR, they are howling at the moon. It makes as much sense as my proposal to ban federal funding for Fox News. Which, for the record, was a proposal made in jest. I really don't care if federal funding for Fox is banned. Because there isn't any.

 

[MobBoss]

AFAIK none of these people are even associated with NPR, much less "writing contributors".

You misread. Those are associated with 'commondreams.org'. Since you had just replied to my comment about that site, I of course thought you were referring to that site with your 'ultra-liberal' comment.

The "problem" with NPR from a reactionary perspective is apparently that it is "elitist" in that it caters to a much more intelligent audience than talk radio or Fox News. Perhaps they should employ a few more people like O'Reilly and kept Williams so that people who are used to being fed sensationalistic propaganda won't feel so left out.

Let me guess. Thats why you listen to it?

In other words, you haven't? But that's not going to stop you from trying to attack the credibility of Common Dreams and NPR instead of actually addressing the issues?

Still no answer for why your lefty watchdog only referenced 4 of NPRs news/talk shows eh?

Perhaps its because some of the ones they left out are quite more liberal: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/brief-history-nprs-intolerance-imbalance/

If you care to notice, you will see those shows mentioned in that link arent the ones in that study. Coincedence? Nah. Someones just using stats to give a false impression.

Bottom line, NPR is recognized as having a liberal bias because if one considers its content as a whole, and not just 4 shows, it has a liberal bias. Simple as that.

Btw, you do realize that the conservative icon George Soros just donated 1.8 million to NPR right? I am sure he did that because of its conservative spin...

Not.

And as FF alluded to earlier, why did you support the firing of "leftist" Helen Thomas for making a similar comment but you don't support the firing of Williams? Is it because Helen wasn't associated with NPR?

I didnt find their comments similar at all....and frankly, Williams is easier on the eyes than Helen Thomas. Ugh.

And Form, since I know your a fan of The View, what about Whoopi Goldbergs comments on this:

"I don't think he should have been fired, because, in fact ... lots of people have this idea," said host Whoopi Goldberg.

And Barbara Walters too:

Host Barbara Walters said Williams perhaps should have been chastised, not fired because he was on the show to give his perspective.

"I think they were very wrong," she said of NPR.

I mean seriously....if even The View cant back up NPR on this.......wow...

 

[warpus]

So this guy said something stupid/bigoted/whatever, so his employer fired him. What's to talk about here?

 

[MobBoss]

So this guy said something stupid/bigoted/whatever, so his employer fired him. What's to talk about here?

Well, that maybe what he said wasnt really that 'stupid/bigoted/whatever' and he got fired without real reason. Its a topic here because he said the comments on (gasp) Foxnews!!! Oh the horror!!

 

[useless]

I can't believe you're defending him.

 

[MobBoss]

I can't believe you're defending him.

I guess you cant believe Whoopi Goldbergs defending him too then?

 

[SomethingWitty]

Well, that maybe what he said wasnt really that 'stupid/bigoted/whatever' and he got fired without real reason. Its a topic here because he said the comments on (gasp) Foxnews!!! Oh the horror!!

Of course he's a bigot. You can defend him all you want, you've already admitted you think the same as he does.

That doesn't mean you can expect people to play dumb and pretend it's not bigotry.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course he's a bigot. You can defend him all you want, you've already admitted you think the same as he does.

That doesn't mean you can expect people to play dumb and pretend it's not bigotry.

I guess those girls on The View are bigots too then...

 

[warpus]

Well, that maybe what he said wasnt really that 'stupid/bigoted/whatever' and he got fired without real reason. Its a topic here because he said the comments on (gasp) Foxnews!!! Oh the horror!!

Didn't he say that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims?

"I get nervous when I see a black person on the street"
"I get nervous when I see a Christian"
"I get nervous when I see Jews, they could steal my money"

That's pretty dumb and bigoted, dude.

 

[BSmith1068]

Is only using 4 shows in this study an acurate representation of the entire 11 news/talk shows on NPR?

A whole lot more representative than your zero out of eleven “study”.

Still no answer for why your lefty watchdog only referenced 4 of NPRs news/talk shows eh?

Perhaps its because some of the ones they left out are quite more liberal: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/brief-history-nprs-intolerance-imbalance/

If you care to notice, you will see those shows mentioned in that link arent the ones in that study. Coincedence? Nah. Someones just using stats to give a false impression.

Bottom line, NPR is recognized as having a liberal bias because if one considers its content as a whole, and not just 4 shows, it has a liberal bias. Simple as that.

Btw, you do realize that the conservative icon George Soros just donated 1.8 million to NPR right? I am sure he did that because of its conservative spin...

Not.

So let me get this straight – you just finished poo-pooing the use of “liberal” websites as sources to actual data, and then link to Fox News as a source to bolster your argument?

 

[Bill3000]

I guess those girls on The View are bigots too then...

Well, they're all stupid, so sure

 

[amadeus]

So let me get this straight – you just finished poo-pooing the use of “liberal” websites as sources to actual data, and then link to Fox News as a source to bolster your argument?

Are you contending that FOX made up those quotes by people that were under contract for NPR?

If FOX says the sky is blue, what color is the sky?

 

[BSmith1068]

Are you contending that FOX made up those quotes by people that were under contract for NPR?

If FOX says the sky is blue, what color is the sky?

Let’s not be silly here ama. You know as well as I do that some posters will dismiss anything that comes from a “biased” source (at least biased against their opinion) simply because the source is biased against their opinion. They never actually look at the content or take a second look to see if the information provided is actually relevant to the conversation.

Worse yet, they use the “bias” as a reason to dismiss an otherwise relevant point of discussion out of hand. This is a cheap and shallow way to “debate”.

My point in quoting MobBoss was to expose the irony of his posting. He is more than willing to use a right-leaning source for information when it suits his argument, but will immediately diss any left-leaning source when it doesn’t. It is absolutely dripping with hypocrisy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You misread. Those are associated with 'commondreams.org'.

Once again, AFAIK, nope. Got any actual evidence other than a commentary by those individuals which may have appeared there once or twice?

http://www.commondreams.org/staff

Let me guess. Thats why you listen to it?

Actually, I don't. But that is obviously their audience. Would you disgree with that assessment? Or are you just trying to use ludicrous personal attacks instead of addressing the issues?

Still no answer for why your lefty watchdog only referenced 4 of NPRs news/talk shows eh?

Because they felt that was enough? Why don't you ask them to defend themselves against absurd attacks on their credibility instead of me? Why won't you discuss the issues instead?

Bottom line, NPR is recognized as having a liberal bias because if one considers its content as a whole, and not just 4 shows, it has a liberal bias. Simple as that.

Bottom line, they have an extremely slight "liberal bias"(in the US politics sense of the word which actually means conservative), if any at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio

Allegations of liberal bias

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that NPR leans left. Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's."[28] It found NPR to be more liberal than the average U.S. voter of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,[29] disputes the claim of a liberal bias.[30]

Allegations of conservative bias

A December 2005 column run by NPR ombudsman and former Vice President Jeffrey Dvorkin denied allegations by some listeners that NPR relies heavily on conservative think-tanks[31]. In his column, Dvorkin listed the number of times NPR had cited experts from conservative and liberal think tanks in the previous year as evidence. The totals were 239 for conservative think tanks, and 141 for liberal ones. He noted that while the number of times liberal think tanks were cited was less, in addition to think tanks the liberal point of view is commonly provided by academics.

In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being supportive of the invasion of Iraq.[32][33]

Allegations of bias against Israel

NPR has been criticised for perceived bias in its coverage of Israel.[34][35][36][37] The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel American media monitoring organization based in Boston, has been particularly critical of NPR. CAMERA director Andrea Levin has stated, "We consider NPR to be the most seriously biased mainstream media outlet," a statement that The Boston Globe describes as having "clearly gotten under her target's skin."[37] NPR's then-Ombudsman, Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, said in a 2002 interview that CAMERA used selective citations and subjective definitions of what it considers pro-Palestinian bias in formulating its findings, and that he felt CAMERA's campaign was "a kind of McCarthyism, frankly, that bashes us and causes people to question our commitment to doing this story fairly. And it exacerbates the legitimate anxieties of many in the Jewish community about the survival of Israel."[38]

Allegations of elitism and the status quo

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public."[39]

Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward ideological power and the status quo. He alleges that the parameters of debate on a given topic are very consciously curtailed. He says that since the network maintains studios in ideological centers of opinion such as Washington, the network feels the necessity to carefully consider what kinds of dissenting opinion are acceptable. Thus, political pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public officials who control some of the NPR's funding (via CPB), often determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning that opinions critical of the structures of national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or "activist" politics) usually do not make it to air.[40]

Defenders' rebuttals

Supporters contend that NPR does its job well. A study conducted in 2003 by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets. In one study, NPR and PBS audiences had a more accurate understanding of the events in Iraq versus all audiences for cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media.[41][42]

And Form, since I know your a fan of The View...

Actually, I have never watched the show. OTOH you admitted in this forum to having done so yourself.