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!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"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)
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
