I see a few different views being thrown around here.
"What was displayed on the video is not a common view at NPR."
"It may be a common view, but everyone has bias, therefore it doesn't matter."
"Only the financial officers have the view, the news people are completely without any bias."
"The news people might be biased, but can you blame them since the racist ignorant gun-tooting tea party folks are out to get their jobs."
I see a few different views being thrown around here.
"What was displayed on the video is not a common view at NPR."
"It may be a common view, but everyone has bias, therefore it doesn't matter."
"Only the financial officers have the view, the news people are completely without any bias."
"The news people might be biased, but can you blame them since the racist ignorant gun-tooting tea party folks are out to get their jobs."
And the, "Are you sure the guy that put this together is worth anything"
Cause I question it in the very state that it exists.
Also you haven't addressed any of the questions raised in return.
which is either because you have no answer, or you don't mind cognitive dissonance.
I see a few different views being thrown around here.
"What was displayed on the video is not a common view at NPR."
"It may be a common view, but everyone has bias, therefore it doesn't matter."
"Only the financial officers have the view, the news people are completely without any bias."
"The news people might be biased, but can you blame them since the racist ignorant gun-tooting tea party folks are out to get their jobs."
A few of those seem aimed at me. Can't say they're wrong though.
The US military is entirely federally funded, but am neither shocked nor appalled when a member of that body exhibits bias. Certainly the rules for journalists are different, but the dude in question is not a journalist.
NPR does not need government money. They have repeatedly said that it is a very small portion of their budget. Even the guy in the video admits that they would probably be better off without it. A few rural stations might lose service, but I would wager many of the people there are the ignorant gun-totting racists that NPR looks down on, so them losing an NPR station is probably not a great a lossWait -- where did the organization NPR say any such thing?
Or are you going to imply that one person happens to represent the entire organization with a single comment?
First interview with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller on Juan Williams firing
Q: Could NPR live without federal funding?
A[Vivian Schiller]: 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.
EDIT: Or straight from the horse's mouth.
Because if that's the case I'm throwing Fred Phillips as the shining example of baptists everywhere, Sarah Palin as the example of female republicans everywhere (nice choice since she's a quitter), and President Bush as an example of all male republicans everywhere that are not represented by Dick Cheney.
Also:
BP represents all Oil companies, the Oil spill represents everything BP does, the right to life crowd are all represented by those that bomb abortion clinics, and Glenn Beck and Ron Paul represent conservatives the USA over.
I have no idea who Fred Phillips is. And you can be sure that for all of the others, they have been used to smear all those groups. Your not really helping your position with that.
I have no idea who Fred Phillips is. And you can be sure that for all of the others, they have been used to smear all those groups. Your not really helping your position with that.
Given the context, I think he meant to say Fred Phelps, who shouldn't need (or deserve) any further introduction.
I have no idea who Fred Phillips is. And you can be sure that for all of the others, they have been used to smear all those groups. Your not really helping your position with that.
Fred Phelps, sorry spelling error -- my fault.
As to the others you are right they have unfairly be used as a standard for all others -- and you are suggesting we carry this standard further.
So what I'm asking is if you are sure that's what you want to do -- because as you pointed out it's not exactly productive.
|
Another site picking up the Glen Beck story
It is weird reading the praise for Blaze, not particularly known for "fair and balanced". Still, I'm glad this came to light.
|
Another site picking up the Glen Beck storyIt is weird reading the praise for Blaze, not particularly known for "fair and balanced". Still, I'm glad this came to light.
Indeed, I don't mind the idea of "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with", but damnit, you don't do yourself, serious journalism, or the public any favors by this kind of hinky editing. If you have the balls to name your plan Project Veritas, then you damn sure better practice what you preach.
The good news is that NPR may soon lose federal funding.
Good news for you, maybe.
The good news is that NPR may soon lose federal funding.
That's where I get my BBC! And my classical music! How dare you?
The good news is that NPR may soon lose federal funding.That's where I get my BBC! And my classical music! How dare you?
If you value it, I guess you should make sure you contribute quite a bit to keep it on the air. Right?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The Blaze, Glen Beck's own peeps, say the video editing done by O'keefe is questionable.
Context is fun.
That's amazing. Hearing the discussion in context, Schiller comes across as a disillusioned former Republican who might support the party more if it got back to its core values of fiscal conservatism and defense of individual liberty.
If you value it, I guess you should make sure you contribute quite a bit to keep it on the air. Right?The good news is that NPR may soon lose federal funding.That's where I get my BBC! And my classical music! How dare you?
Here's what I don't understand. They get federal funds under the auspice that they remain mainstream, and try to provide un-biased, high quality reporting. Now sure, you can claim that no one can really be "un-biased", but you admit that they less biased than Fox, MSNBC, and are closer to CNN (although I would say, not as witless as CNN most times).
So lets say they loose their federal funding (which probably won't happen because of the Senate Dems). That would solve what?
Would they become less "biased"? no.
Would it solve the debt crisis? not by a long shot.
Dropping federal funding means that conservatives don't want to be invested in any kind mainstream reporting, but then again reality does have a well known liberal bias...
|
|
"NPR's board had pushed for the resignation of Vivian Schiller, whom conservatives also criticized in October for firing analyst Juan Williams over comments he made about Muslims. She was not in the video, which was posted Tuesday by a conservative activist, but she told The Associated Press that staying on would only hurt NPR's fight for federal money..."
So NPR's Board thought she was disloyal to their right to be Racist and Xenophobic and demanded her resignation?
Thats like Adolf Hitler expelling Jews from the NAZI Party...
The good news is that NPR may soon lose federal funding.That's where I get my BBC! And my classical music! How dare you?
I need my relaxing music in the morning!!!
I like to think that I have no particular party bias in this matter and I have two sets of points.
First, as the links above show, the sting is a complete snow-job. But what I really want to know is why are the "liberals"/Democrats such pussies? If you add this to the demolition of ACORN, the Shirley (?) Sherrod incident, etc. you get the idea that Democrats relish every chance they get to cut off their own balls. It doesn't make any sense to me; it seems to deny basic Darwinian principles of self-preservation.
You can make comparisons between O'Keefe and Michael Moore, I don't really care, but one big difference that occurs to me (and I might be misinformed here) is that nobody ever targeted by Moore has ever been sacked. Which says more about the targets, I think, then it does about the journalists/con-men/documentarians/whatever you want to call them.
Second, regarding the funding of public broadcasting, I think it's sad and probably damning when our society (or any society for that matter) cuts back on promoting culture. Libraries and public broadcasting and arts and sciences (despite my deep, abiding hatred of the moon) and all of that crap are part of our shared human heritage and I think it's a shame when we cut back on our commitment to them or, worse, throw them to the marketplace and chance.
But that's just me.
|
|
I like to think that I have no particular party bias in this matter and I have two sets of points.
First, as the links above show, the sting is a complete snow-job. But what I really want to know is why are the "liberals"/Democrats such pussies? If you add this to the demolition of ACORN, the Shirley (?) Sherrod incident, etc. you get the idea that Democrats relish every chance they get to cut off their own balls. It doesn't make any sense to me; it seems to deny basic Darwinian principles of self-preservation.
You can make comparisons between O'Keefe and Michael Moore, I don't really care, but one big difference that occurs to me (and I might be misinformed here) is that nobody ever targeted by Moore has ever been sacked. Which says more about the targets, I think, then it does about the journalists/con-men/documentarians/whatever you want to call them.
Second, regarding the funding of public broadcasting, I think it's sad and probably damning when our society (or any society for that matter) cuts back on promoting culture. Libraries and public broadcasting and arts and sciences (despite my deep, abiding hatred of the moon) and all of that crap are part of our shared human heritage and I think it's a shame when we cut back on our commitment to them or, worse, throw them to the marketplace and chance.
But that's just me.
No it is not just you. Well the hatred of the moon thing I will never fathom but the rest, about the arts and libraries ect... Yeah I can get behind that.
|
No it is not just you. Well the hatred of the moon thing I will never fathom
You ever smell green cheese? Watched an episode of Dragonball Z last nite. Piccolo prevented a super lycanthropic child from destroying the earth.... by blowing up the moon. Now that's the venue for over the top power. Must have made Anklebiter very happy.
|
|
You ever smell green cheese? Watched an episode of Dragonball Z last nite. Piccolo prevented a super lycanthropic child from destroying the earth.... by blowing up the moon. Now that's the venue for over the top power. Must have made Anklebiter very happy.
No it is not just you. Well the hatred of the moon thing I will never fathom
Well that and the intro to the beloved fan favorite Thundarr the Barbarian!
Well that and the intro to the beloved fan favorite Thundarr the Barbarian!You ever smell green cheese? Watched an episode of Dragonball Z last nite. Piccolo prevented a super lycanthropic child from destroying the earth.... by blowing up the moon. Now that's the venue for over the top power. Must have made Anklebiter very happy.
No it is not just you. Well the hatred of the moon thing I will never fathom
Yeah, Thundarr the Barbarian was where I first realized we didn't need that two-bit orbular luminescence. Down with the Moon!
First, as the links above show, the sting is a complete snow-job. But what I really want to know is why are the "liberals"/Democrats such pussies? If you add this to the demolition of ACORN, the Shirley (?) Sherrod incident, etc. you get the idea that Democrats relish every chance they get to cut off their own balls. It doesn't make any sense to me; it seems to deny basic Darwinian principles of self-preservation.
I really wish you'd chosen another set of metaphors here (the equation of weakness with femininity is really annoying to me), but I agree with the point you make. I think liberals hesitate to stand firm far too often in these kinds of debates.
Second, regarding the funding of public broadcasting, I think it's sad and probably damning when our society (or any society for that matter) cuts back on promoting culture. Libraries and public broadcasting and arts and sciences (despite my deep, abiding hatred of the moon) and all of that crap are part of our shared human heritage and I think it's a shame when we cut back on our commitment to them or, worse, throw them to the marketplace and chance.
But that's just me.
No, no it isn't just you. I'm right there with you. Of course, I'm a librarian, so my career is rather tied to the cultural and societal worth that we place on literature, science, the arts, and the preservation of culture. I'm not exactly unbiased in this debate, myself.
I really wish you'd chosen another set of metaphors here (the equation of weakness with femininity is really annoying to me), but I agree with the point you make. I think liberals hesitate to stand firm far too often in these kinds of debates.
I could be wrong here -- but I think for the most part it is because the democrats understand the 'rules' of debate better and refuse to use logical fallacies and the tactics built on them like republicans do.
However while they understand the logical fallacy involved with a particular argument they do a poor job of exposing it for what it is, and taking advantage of it.
I get the sense that democrats as a whole generally 'play fair' much more than the republicans -- who have always seemed rather 'cutthroat' to me.
**************************
This is not to say that democrats are saints -- they have their own sins they wallow in... it's just a different set than the republicans wallow through.
**************************
I still advocate dismantling the built in two party system in politics in the USA. A person should run on his own merits -- not those of the party he is a part of -- or the flaws of the party he is running against.
And what if we don't agree that the Constitution allows for such federal funding in the first place?
Hm... a "strict Constitution" type?
I really wish you'd chosen another set of metaphors here (the equation of weakness with femininity is really annoying to me), but I agree with the point you make.
I'm glad you agree, but I'm really annoyed at how you equated ball-lessness with feminity. Stop oppressing eunuchs!
Hee hee!
I really wish you'd chosen another set of metaphors here (the equation of weakness with femininity is really annoying to me), but I agree with the point you make.
I'm glad you agree, but I'm really annoyed at how you equated ball-lessness with feminity. Stop oppressing eunuchs!
Hee hee!
Ninjaed me here. Eunuchs are not women by a long shot.
That's right!
I had two metaphors for weakness and draw on each sex equally for one.
My perfectly PC credentials are impeccable.
Hee hee!
