Do you think it might be possible that it doesn't matter to anybody here? If so, why?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I honestly don't see why NPR executives aren't allowed to dislike the Tea Party. I mean, I know people who work for the Department of Transportation who have opinions about the Tea Party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Yes I do think it is possible that it doesn't matter. One reason could be that they agree with Schiller's assesments of republicans and the tea party. Another could be that it was just one person at NPR and not the whole organization so it isn't really a story at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One reason could be that they agree with Schiller's assesments of republicans and the tea party.
Why would that matter? Heck, I know several people working for the Justice Department who don't like the Democrats, and you'd think -- given that the President's a Democrat -- that this would be even more of a problem. But it isn't.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Tom, excellent timing Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again: why do you think it should matter? Does it matter that people working for the government have political opinions?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Why would that matter? Heck, I know several people working for the Justice Department who don't like the Democrats, and you'd think -- given that the President's a Democrat -- that this would be even more of a problem. But it isn't.
Out of curiosity, do you think that Schiller's attitude is a fairly common attitude at NPR?
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
(Note this is not the Schiller fellow at the lunch, it's the Schiller lady who was ceo)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Both Schillers are gone, and are not related.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Again: why do you think it should matter? Does it matter that people working for the government have political opinions?
Is there anyone who doesn't have a political opinion? That's not a very good question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't be a coward.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Don't be a name caller. You asked a bad question especially since the 'government' contains all of the politicians who have political opinions. Was Schiller representing the government?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I dislike the Tea Party in pretty strong terms, and I'm not likely to agree with DarkKnight on many given political topics that I've discussed (and this probably isn't one either). I mention that to establish that I'm not sayin' this out of a take-his-side impulse or anything, but dang Tom, that last remark was pretty bad and unnecessary. It's difficult for me to believe you're not good enough at understanding people not to have known it at the time, too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Yes I do think it is possible that it doesn't matter. One reason could be that they agree with Schiller's assesments of republicans and the tea party.
Wait. You really think that it's possible that every single person here on Hatrack shares Shiller's assesments of republicans and the tea party?
Do you think that it's possible, for example, that there are zero republicans here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
DarkKnight is dodging the core issue, and doing so not just disingenuously but dishonestly. He knows perfectly well why this doesn't matter, but lacks the guts to stray from his programmed line.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not too familiar with NPR, but strictly speaking, is NPR really part of "the government" as opposed to having some government funding?
The BBC and CBC are actual state-owned, crown corporations in the case of the CBC. But briefly looking, NPR doesn't look like its on the list of the US equivalents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Wait. You really think that it's possible that every single person here on Hatrack shares Shiller's assesments of republicans and the tea party?
It would be of interest to see a survey of that question.
quote: DarkKnight is dodging the core issue, and doing so not just disingenuously but dishonestly. He knows perfectly well why this doesn't matter, but lacks the guts to stray from his programmed line.
No, TomDavidson, I am not dodging anything and you know that perfectly well. You are setting up certain specific conditions to prove a point. How can the core issue be "Does it matter that people working for the government have political opinions?"? You know full well that everyone has a political opinion, everyone does include people in the government and at NPR. You asked a bad question to start down the path of people in government, news organizations, etc being allowed to express their political views in a general sense. Right? Here is a better question, should an individual acting as a representative of NPR in a fund raising capacity express a particular disparging political bias be reprimanded/fired/some sort of action? Please note the qualifiers. Or in your government case, should an individual from the Justice department, acting in an official capacity, make a statement like 'Tea Party members are racist and belong in jail' be reprimanded/fired/some sort of action? Again, please note the qualifiers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It would be of interest to see a survey of that question.
I note that you didn't even try to answer my question about what you think.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't be a coward.
Tom: Please tread lightly, you are borderline verbally abusing another poster. You can easily discuss a poster's hesitance to answer a question without calling them a coward.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
NPR is not a part of the government. There is nothing governmentally wrong with someone who works for a non-profit organization having political opinions. It is complicated when journalists have and express strong political opinions, though it seems like everyone but NPR ignores this anyway. The guy that was fired wasn't even a journalist.
Having said all that, it is entirely possible that getting caught expressing those opinions in a sting showed bad judgment and compromised his ability to effectively do his job.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This proves that there exists at least one person at NPR who is willing to express an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a private conversation, when baited into it by the person he is talking to.
It also should be noted that the person is the Vice President for Fundraising, who presumably has no influence over NPR content, and that he was under the impression that he was talking to a major donor who wanted to hear that sort of opinion.
Should anyone consider this a controversy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Here is a better question, should an individual acting as a representative of NPR in a fund raising capacity express a particular disparging political bias be reprimanded/fired/some sort of action?
Okay, so this is what you think the question is.
So: an individual, acting in a fundraising capacity for an organization, is led by a donor into criticism of a group that a) the donor has said he dislikes; and b) the individual may or may not dislike.
I don't see the problem. If you're amazed that fundraising officers will say things to donors that they think donors want to hear, let me know and I'll explain why this happens.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This proves that there exists at least one person at NPR who is willing to express an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a private conversation, when baited into it by the person he is talking to.
It also should be noted that the person is the Vice President for Fundraising, who presumably has no influence over NPR content, and that he was under the impression that he was talking to a major donor who wanted to hear that sort of opinion.
Should anyone consider this a controversy?
Nope.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it's worth making hay over, but in today's climate, it certainly will be. Bugs me too. I love NPR. I listen to it all the time. I'd be pretty well crushed if it went off the air. And I really don't get what people who have an axe to grind against NPR are complaining about. Have they even listened to the show, or is the assumption that NPR has a liberal bias all that's necessary?
Whenever I think of this, I just keep thinking of Colbert's "Reality has a liberal bias" comment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No, TomDavidson, I am not dodging anything and you know that perfectly well.
You can't say that when you're observably going out of your way to not directly address or answer his question, even when it's repeatedly asked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Here is a better question, should an individual acting as a representative of NPR in a fund raising capacity express a particular disparging political bias be reprimanded/fired/some sort of action?
It depends to some degree on the context in which that person expressed those opinions. Was the comment made while the person was acting in an official capacity for NPR, or in his/her free time?
I think when any person makes a comment that is embarrassing to his/her employer, while s/he is acting in an official capacity as an employee, the employer would justified in taking action against that employee. The severity would of course be dependent on the specifics.
If the comments were not made either publicly or as part of the persons official capacity as an employee, then I shutter to think they might be fired or even reprimanded for them. An employer should not have the right to control what employees say in private conversations during their free time.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You know what really gets me about calls to defund NPR? (one of the many things) Here are some of my favorite shows on NPR:
This American Life Radiolab Prairie Home Companion Wiretap Car Talk Talk of the Nation's Science Friday Fresh Air
Sure I enjoy the news and political stuff as well, and NPR IS one of my top news sources, but it's these types of shows that I'd be really sad about.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I really don't get what people who have an axe to grind against NPR are complaining about. Have they even listened to the show, or is the assumption that NPR has a liberal bias all that's necessary?
Whenever I think of this, I just keep thinking of Colbert's "Reality has a liberal bias" comment.
I am a big fan of NPR. I've listened to it an awful lot, although not much in the last few years (mostly due to changes in my driving habits).
Based on my own experiences listening to it, I disagree with your claim that NPR has no liberal bias.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It could be that Lyrhawn isn't denying that NPR has a liberal bias, but stating that it has one because reality has a liberal bias.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's just a snide way of saying the same thing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
NPR definitely has a liberal bias, but it's fairly mild relative to other media organizations and I get the impression that the journalists that work for NPR actually care about not letting their biases get in the way of the best possible journalism. They seem to run a story about this every so often and appear fairly thoughtful about this issue.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
That's just a snide way of saying the same thing.
Are you rolling your eyes at me or at Lyrhawn via my suggested interpretation of his post?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I largely agree with MattP, particularly regarding their reporting and All Things Considered which is by far my biggest NPR listening experience. I think they're aware of it and pretty honest about reporting on it, certainly more honest than other outlets in my opinion at least. Or at least more concerned about the possible implications. I can't say whether that's because of their funding or because it's intrinsic to their ethics, though.
Going a bit further from what MattP said, though, I find the idea that NPR doesn't have a liberal bias about as strange and implausible as the idea that Fox News doesn't have a conservative bias. Not that I'm saying I feel NPR is skewed as far to the left as Fox is to the right or anything-I'm just saying that, to me, it's pretty plain there is some leaning going on.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So this man who's job was to get donations is recorded on tape saying things to get funding that he believes the men making a huge donation want to hear. Its not a liberal bias. Its a sales tool.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So this man who's job was to get donations is recorded on tape saying things to get funding that he believes the men making a huge donation want to hear. Its not a liberal bias. Its a sales tool.
That's not fair. The fraud, who recorded the conversation, offered NPR $5 million, no strings attached. NPR refused to accept the donation because the purported organization had ties to Islamic terrorism.
This is the second time in the last couple of weeks that I've read an account of some one making fraudulent claims about their identity in order to get someone or some organization to embarrass themselves. In both cases (Gov. Walker and NPR) the attempt pretty much failed but the groups in question nonetheless tried to make a scandal out of it. I find this tactic shameful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is O'Keefe at work. The guy who is now a convicted felon due to his intentionally deceptive antics, took down ACORN with doctored videos, and tried to trap a CNN reporter in a boat full of dildos. What do you expect?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is O'Keefe at work. The guy who is now a convicted felon due to his intentionally deceptive antics, took down ACORN with doctored videos, and tried to trap a CNN reporter in a boat full of dildos. What do you expect?
Don't forget his out of context video where a member of the Obama administration was telling how she overcame racism and was fired anyway.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I largely agree with MattP, particularly regarding their reporting and All Things Considered which is by far my biggest NPR listening experience. I think they're aware of it and pretty honest about reporting on it, certainly more honest than other outlets in my opinion at least. Or at least more concerned about the possible implications. I can't say whether that's because of their funding or because it's intrinsic to their ethics, though.
Going a bit further from what MattP said, though, I find the idea that NPR doesn't have a liberal bias about as strange and implausible as the idea that Fox News doesn't have a conservative bias. Not that I'm saying I feel NPR is skewed as far to the left as Fox is to the right or anything-I'm just saying that, to me, it's pretty plain there is some leaning going on.
I actually listen to NPR pretty frequently and don't really seem them leaning very much at all - some stories lean one way, other stories lean another way. For instance, almost everything I've heard regarding the Wisconsin thing has leaned, if anywhere, to the conservative side. (This is going based solely on the parts of the programming I've happened to hear.)
I tend to be pretty centrist, and I usually find that NPR provides more factual, less "flavored" reporting than my other news sources.
However, that's all besides the point when you're talking about this particular "trap". First of all, this was obviously a baited situation and the guy was a fundraiser. Secondly, the guy was already on his way out at NPR, so who cares?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I enjoy NPR for the most part, as long as it's their news reporting or humor.
I find Fresh Air to be a waste of time, though, and fairly biased. Same thing goes for This American Life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that's odd. You think This American Life is a waste of time but you like the humorous and news aspects of the network? What are you listening to then? Wait Wait Don't Tell Me?
I'm also a little surprised to hear This American Life described as biased, or Fresh Air even. A lot of it is just human interest stories and audio essays on a variety of things. Is it their portrayal of culture that you have a problem with?
To be fair, Fresh Air isn't really my cup of tea either, and I don't listen to This American Life that often unless I know of a particular guest, like Sarah Vowell or David Sedaris, is going to be on.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Wait, This American Life is biased? Toward whom, hipsters?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is O'Keefe at work. The guy who is now a convicted felon due to his intentionally deceptive antics, took down ACORN with doctored videos, and tried to trap a CNN reporter in a boat full of dildos. What do you expect?
Don't forget his out of context video where a member of the Obama administration was telling how she overcame racism and was fired anyway.
I don't think that was O'Keefe, but it was still a Breitbart thing.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is O'Keefe at work. The guy who is now a convicted felon due to his intentionally deceptive antics, took down ACORN with doctored videos, and tried to trap a CNN reporter in a boat full of dildos. What do you expect?
to be accurate, his felony conviction was for trespassing on federal property while intending to tamper with the phone system. completely unrelated to the planned parenthood and ACORN incidences, both of which were highly comical and successful. i bet the blogger who called walker wishes his prank call was as successful. its likely o'keefe's NPR call doesnt deserve full credit for dethroning schiller but it does show, yet again, his mitnick-like skills at social engineering. his ninja skills are still lacking and hopefully he refrains any more B&E.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:his ninja skills are still lacking and hopefully he refrains any more B&E.
Yes, let's hope he sticks entirely to intentionally deceiving conservatives in a morally lacking manner and not include B&E in any more of that. It sullies his otherwise comical antics.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Wait, This American Life is biased? Toward whom, hipsters?
*laugh*
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Wait, This American Life is biased? Toward whom, hipsters?
I thought that you should know I had a nice belly-laugh at this comment. It's true! :-D
Anyways, I'm pretty conservative, and I listen to NPR all the time. Sure, it's biased to the left - but it is usually akin to the sound of a mouse farting a mile away. For comparison, Fox News is more like an elephant farting in your ear.
This isn't good for NPR, sadly. I don't really see the sinister conspiracy though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you looking for the sinister conspiracy? Because there is in fact a conspiracy, although its sinister nature may be debatable.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Perhaps I should rephrase: I don't see a sinister conspiracy that is being run by NPR to (take over the world | bring about communisim | etc).
The "conspiracy" to take them down, though, is too open to deserve that label.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I do think NPR is conspiring to cause people to consume more organically-grown coffee.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I've been an unwitting pawn!
ETA: Nice ToPP.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do think NPR is conspiring to cause people to consume more organically-grown coffee.
Ooooo...in those mugs they push during pledge week!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"There is a difference between a news organization influenced by bias and a biased news organization driven by ideology under the rubrick of being a news organization." - Jon Stewart (paraphrased)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
NPR NPR will not go off the air if they lose federal funding. The federal grants are a small percent of their total income. Even NPR says some stations may go dark, not that they will, but they may. This does not mean NPR is gone from the country. Back in 2003 Joan Kroc gave more than $200 million to NPR.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:NPR will not go off the air if they lose federal funding.
So? They get a pittance, and provide enormous value in exchange for that pittance. Let 'em keep doing it.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I'm one of those people who live so far out in the boonies in a red state that I'll probably lose my local NPR station. Its bullshit Seriously there's nothing else to listen to on the radio out here unless church stations with screaming evangelists talking about Obama the Antichrist is your thing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "There is a difference between a news organization influenced by bias and a biased news organization driven by ideology under the rubrick of being a news organization." - Jon Stewart (paraphrased)
It's interesting to compare this thought with some of the opinions kat expressed in the discussion of the Canadian law on misleading news. She seemed to be saying that an organization of the latter sort (blatantly biased) is less harmful than an organization of the former sort.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So? They get a pittance, and provide enormous value in exchange for that pittance. Let 'em keep doing it.
They don't need federal money so No.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:She seemed to be saying that an organization of the latter sort (blatantly biased) is less harmful than an organization of the former sort.
No, this is wrong. That is not what I was saying at all.
What is with the reading comprehension on Hatrack? It's like people are aching to see and believe the worst of people.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Okay, so this is what you think the question is.
I clearly stated what I think the question is.
quote: So: an individual, acting in a fundraising capacity for an organization, is led by a donor into criticism of a group that a) the donor has said he dislikes; and b) the individual may or may not dislike.
I clearly stated what the question is, and even asked that you note the qualifiers. What you posted was not what I asked. You made it very general, and it was not a general question. By making it a very general question you can change the qualifiers of the question thus making your question meaningless in this context. But I think you knew that already
quote: I don't see the problem. If you're amazed that fundraising officers will say things to donors that they think donors want to hear, let me know and I'll explain why this happens.
I appreciate your never ending condescion but it isn't necessary. You are not properly seeing the question, but again, you knew that.
quote: This proves that there exists at least one person at NPR who is willing to express an unfavorable view of the Tea Party in a private conversation, when baited into it by the person he is talking to.
A private conversation if you mean he didn't know it was being recorded. He was acting as a representative of NPR, not as a private citizen.
quote: I note that you didn't even try to answer my question about what you think.
I think NPR is overwhelmingly staffed with people who are on the left to varying degrees. This has an influence on how they report the news. For instance, in general they would report good economic news under Bush with a 'but this bad thing' attached. They, in general, report bad economic news with 'and this good thing' attached. NPR raises enough money, and can easily meet the loss of money from the federal government. NPR becomes truly independent and it would remove a talking point from politicians.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By making it a very general question you can change the qualifiers of the question thus making your question meaningless in this context...
So we agree that, given the context, this is a ridiculous thing to pretend to be outraged by?
quote:He was acting as a representative of NPR, not as a private citizen.
He met a potential donor over lunch. What do you think he was "representing?"
quote:NPR becomes truly independent and it would remove a talking point from politicians.
I'm glad to see that you agree that it's a silly conservative talking point.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:She seemed to be saying that an organization of the latter sort (blatantly biased) is less harmful than an organization of the former sort.
No, this is wrong. That is not what I was saying at all.
What is with the reading comprehension on Hatrack? It's like people are aching to see and believe the worst of people.
You know, you're right. I just looked back at what you said in that thread and it didn't really bear out my memory of it.
I think I was remembering some of the opinions you expressed in this older thread, but even those don't entirely fit what I was saying.
So, my apologies.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So we agree that, given the context, this is a ridiculous thing to pretend to be outraged by?
So clearly we agree, based upon your responses, that NPR is a left wing organization that promotes the Democratic party only.
quote: He met a potential donor over lunch. What do you think he was "representing?"
NPR
quote: I'm glad to see that you agree that it's a silly conservative talking point.
I agree in the same way that you agree NPR should not be funded by the federal government. Wow, you sure did cave in and completely agree to everything I am saying and have said a lot faster than I thought you would.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
DarkKnight, you are way less clever than you think you are, and responding like that does not catch your side any more ground.
Also do not complain about condescension then be even more condescending please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So clearly we agree, based upon your responses, that NPR is a left wing organization that promotes the Democratic party only.
No. I have, in my responses, noted that the context of their conversation is relevant. You have repeatedly urged people to examine this issue outside of the relevant context, within the narrow confines of a highly artificial question worded to obtain the answer you desire.
My point throughout has been that this is artificial outrage -- that, in fact, he was a fundraiser meeting a potentially large donor for lunch and agreeing (in some cases quite anemically) with outrageous statements made by that donor. He at no point, when expressing his opinions to that donor, indicated that he was expressing some official position of NPR as an organization (and I strongly suspect that he, as a skilled fundraiser, has had that impulse drummed out of him.)
At no point have I conceded any ground to you.
You have, however, conceded the following things: that the offense one might take from the conversation depends heavily upon context, and taking the conversation in context eliminates that offense; that the best source of offense might be found in the idea that the guy was acting as a representative of the positions of a branch of the federal government, which of course he wasn't doing; and moreover that defunding NPR is a political talking point rather than a real fiscal priority.
Let me repeat that: you have come out and said all of the above. You have, in fact, been completely and totally pwned in this conversation. I do not, however, expect you to admit this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:She seemed to be saying that an organization of the latter sort (blatantly biased) is less harmful than an organization of the former sort.
No, this is wrong. That is not what I was saying at all.
What is with the reading comprehension on Hatrack? It's like people are aching to see and believe the worst of people.
You know, you're right. I just looked back at what you said in that thread and it didn't really bear out my memory of it.
I think I was remembering some of the opinions you expressed in this older thread, but even those don't entirely fit what I was saying.
We sure as hell got to get those bastards off the air, sucking down huge amounts of federal dollars like they're doing. It just can't be tolerated and it's a huge crisis, not at all a political haystorm for the Republicans in general and far-right conservatives in particular to have fun with and serve as distraction.
Heaven knows that once we get the enormous chunk of budget back from NPR (and of course, magically there will be no negative impact on the service they provide, a service most anyone not already calling for their downfall would agree is at least average if not excellent), we'll be able to do great things with it. Lots of great, impressive things with it.
That's entirely setting aside the extremely dishonest way this 'scandal' was set up in the first place (something one who was honestly examining the situation would consider just from the name of the guy who 'discovered' it). Even if the facts were exactly as he presented them, it's still a crap distraction bit of political news.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
As has been pointed out here (as well as other places), the real problem with cutting off government funding to NPR is not that NPR itself will stop broadcasting, but that many smaller stations will no longer be able to afford programming and in some cases may go dark entirely.
Honestly, I'd be highly surprised if the defunding effort passed the Senate. Chances are that given time this issue will pass like the tempest in a teapot it is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Still, you have to make a tempest about the attempt each time. Well, I think so, anyway. Even if I didn't listen to NPR, it's still one of the most factually accurate news sources widely provided to the American people, and it ranks lowest or near-lowest on percentage of people who come away from it misinformed. It's worth protecting.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Didn't tickle my funny bone actually, and I love NPR in general and Car Talk in particular. Not quite sure why-perhaps because it seems like it stoops to the level of folks who take aim at NPR and then behave as though it's a serious bit of governing. I guess I actually take opposition to that seriously, so I guess I hope there was more to the rant than repetitive heavy-handed and pandering sarcasm. Something along the lines of highlighting just how inexpensive NPR is for the service it provides, especially as a proportion of actual spending.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Still, you have to make a tempest about the attempt each time. Well, I think so, anyway. Even if I didn't listen to NPR, it's still one of the most factually accurate news sources widely provided to the American people, and it ranks lowest or near-lowest on percentage of people who come away from it misinformed. It's worth protecting.
Absolutely. But I have to take some comfort in the failure because the attempt is so wrong-headed. Every time it comes up, it makes the far-right look fanatical and out of touch; every time a Breitbart video precedes something, the effect is compounded.
It is my hope that by the next time the GOP controls both houses, running this particular play will seem like- no, be- political suicide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:every time a Breitbart video precedes something, the effect is compounded.
Don't forget Ann Coulter. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Planet Money did a piece last Thursday about this issue. Which is great, because Planet Money would be my Exhibit A if I were trying to put together a defense of NPR. As usual, they did a great job of dissecting the problem and explaining all the points of view, many of which I hadn't considered.
Planet Money does a consistently excellent job of making compelling cases for economic opinions I never even knew existed, from every nook and cranny of the political spectrum. Not only are they not left-wing shills, but at their best they transcend the left/right paradigm entirely. And if they can bring their bottomless inquisitiveness and even-handedness to a story that they obviously have such a personal stake in, it's hard to think they'd do any less for the other subjects they cover.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not really surprising, but kind of interesting in a rubber-necking way, how transparently dishonest these folks can be.
Now they care about what the 'growing body of evidence' from various scientific communities has to say about dangerous environmental things?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not really surprising, but kind of interesting in a rubber-necking way, how transparently dishonest these folks can be.
To the extent that I was mindblown that someone would support and defend Breitbart, here or elsewhere. Or still attach themselves mindlessly to the ~acorn scandal~ or obama's neighbor the domestic terrorist jack ayers, then turn around and hammer NPR for
wait for it
wait for it
inexcusable lack of objectivity
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Didn't tickle my funny bone actually, and I love NPR in general and Car Talk in particular. Not quite sure why-perhaps because it seems like it stoops to the level of folks who take aim at NPR and then behave as though it's a serious bit of governing. I guess I actually take opposition to that seriously, so I guess I hope there was more to the rant than repetitive heavy-handed and pandering sarcasm. Something along the lines of highlighting just how inexpensive NPR is for the service it provides, especially as a proportion of actual spending.
Rakeesh, I'd agree with you if Weiner's speech was the only speech given from the floor. And while I didn't see other speeches, I have to imagine that many democrats DID address the points you're concerned with. In that sort of context I'd find Weiner's rant a great comedic addition to the seriousness of the ridiculousness of the issue.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Seriously there's nothing else to listen to on the radio out here unless church stations with screaming evangelists talking about Obama the Antichrist is your thing.