Should we "defund" NPR?

[DawnCt1]

Yes, I think NPR is a public service and no I don't think one of the requirements of a public service is that it has to reflect the opinions of all Americans. And I am baffled why anyone would think so. That would be complete government control and that would be bizarre. Do I (or many Americans) agree with all decisions of the military, everything Congress says and decrees or how all schools conduct classes? Of course not, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be funded.

Nor do I, but if we are paying for it, there should be a balance of opinions. If they don't want to present a balance of opinions, let them survive on private donations or sell air time. The Constitution provides for the funding of the military not for public radio. I don't think Congress should be involved in curriculum either. That should be left to the states to decide what they chose to include in the curriculum.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

No.

I agree with Vivian Schiller.

"News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts"

 

[DawnCt1]

I think NPR should be more mainstream if everyone's tax dollars fund it. It's like the opposite of FOX news only with public funding. How would you like FOX news to be funded by your tax dollars?

Excellent point.

 

[MissFitt]

Funny how NPR did not nothing when it was done to another religion. It is almost amusing the lengths our country will go to know to make sure Muslims aren't offended. It is almost like we are scared of them and what reaction they may have when they do feel offended.

Just happened with CNN who fired Rick Sanchez when he made comments about "another religion"

 

[OceanAnnie]

No.

I agree with Vivian Schiller.

"News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts"

Yet they do it when it serves them, every day.

 

[DawnCt1]

No.

I agree with Vivian Schiller.

"News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts"

Except it was not in her venue. Do you agree with her slanderous comment that he should discuss his "feelings with his psychiatrist?" Was that over the line?

 

[luvmy3]

Hardly. There are many people who find Fox News reprehensible and not worth the air time it has.

Your opinion clearly varies from mine. Neither is more valid than the other.

Yours isn't valid, what FCC rules were violated?

Ironically if we could sanction News Networks for our opinions that they are reprehensible and not worth the air time, FOX would be the only one left, since they are the most watched news network

 

[OceanAnnie]

Except it was not in her venue. Do you agree with her slanderous comment that he should discuss his "feelings with his psychiatrist?" Was that over the line?

She aired her personal opinion in a very malicious manner. Isn't that the same thing she accused Juan of doing?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I think NPR should be more mainstream if everyone's tax dollars fund it. It's like the opposite of FOX news only with public funding. How would you like FOX news to be funded by your tax dollars?

Do you actually listen to NPR, or are you just assuming? Would it surprise you to know that when reviewed by a watchdog group, NPR was been found to actually have more conservative sources than liberal ones? Assumptions without facts never turn out well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0525-11.htm

 

[OceanAnnie]

Do you actually listen to NPR, or are you just assuming? Would it surprise you to know that when reviewed by a watchdog group, NPR was been found to actually have more conservative sources than liberal ones? Assumptions without facts never turn out well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0525-11.htm

Actually, I have listened to them. They are not my prime news source by any stretch. I haven't "heard" the conservative sources when I've listened. I imagine being a Liberal Princess, you don't tune in to NPR for conservative views.

 

[sbell111]

I don't think that the opinions expressed DAILY on public radio reflect the opinions of most Americans. I think it was become an elite entity that is out of touch with those who have to pay a portion of the bill.

Given that you don't actually listen to public radio, I can only surmise that your opinion was spoon fed to you by Fox News.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Nor do I, but if we are paying for it, there should be a balance of opinions. If they don't want to present a balance of opinions, let them survive on private donations or sell air time. The Constitution provides for the funding of the military not for public radio. I don't think Congress should be involved in curriculum either. That should be left to the states to decide what they chose to include in the curriculum.

I will ask you the same question I asked another poster: do you even listen to NPR? On what are you basing your opinion that they are not balanced? Because they fired one person? And what balance are you talking about -- there should be equality in bigoted opinions? Balanced firings? Because none of your posts thus far have done anything to prove that the NPR content is not balanced. And, unless you have anything to back that up, your call for balance makes no sense.

 

[sbell111]

I should also point out to you that most Americans who get their news from cable tv get it from Fox.

Actually, CNN beats Fox News by something like 10 million viewers. When you separate out non-news opinion shows, the gap gets considerably greater. It should also be noted that CNN runs two news networks. If you were to add in HLN's news watchers/listeners, the gap would grow that much larger.

BTW, MSNBC has more viewers than FOX News, also.

Here's the takeaway: Just because Fox News tells you something, doesn't mean it is true.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Except it was not in her venue.

Doesn't matter. When a well known employee of a company is out in public, he or she is considered a representative of the company. If Steve Jobs says something controversial, people WILL blame Apple, regardless of whether it's right to do so.

Do you agree with her slanderous comment that he should discuss his "feelings with his psychiatrist?" Was that over the line?

I don't know if he should discuss his feelings with his psychiatrist. My wife and I actually had a conversation yesterday about reactions based on appearance. When is a feeling like the one he described due to a biased attitude, and when is it a survival instinct?

Was she over the line? Yes.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I will ask you the same question I asked another poster: do you even listen to NPR? On what are you basing your opinion that they are not balanced? Because they fired one person? And what balance are you talking about -- there should be equality in bigoted opinions? Balanced firings? Because none of your posts thus far have done anything to prove that the NPR content is not balanced. And, unless you have anything to back that up, your call for balance makes no sense.

How can you call Juan "bigoted"? He defended Muslims for the ENTIRE segment!
He spoke briefly about his feelings. Which many, many, Americans agree with him. Are all that agree with him bigots too?

ETA- Did you see the segment at all?

 

[wtccheermom]

Just happened with CNN who fired Rick Sanchez when he made comments about "another religion"

I was talking specifically about NPR and it was in response to Dawn's comment which I quoted!

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Actually, I have listened to them. They are not my prime news source by any stretch. I haven't "heard" the conservative sources when I've listened. I imagine being a Liberal Princess, you don't tune in to NPR for conservative views.

And, again, your assumptions are far off base. There are many other meanings of the word liberal than just political ones. If you can't have a discussion based on facts and solely rely on false assumptions, why bother? And trying to assume knowledge based on a user name is simply ridiculous. And I think I will rely on the actual facts from a study about the NPR sources rather than your memory of tuning in, lol.

 

[DawnCt1]

I will ask you the same question I asked another poster: do you even listen to NPR? On what are you basing your opinion that they are not balanced? Because they fired one person? And what balance are you talking about -- there should be equality in bigoted opinions? Balanced firings? Because none of your posts thus far have done anything to prove that the NPR content is not balanced. And, unless you have anything to back that up, your call for balance makes no sense.

I certainly think that a public funded entity should display some consistency. I think that if an entity is desired, it should be funded by those that use the product. The fact that Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts were never fired, demonstrates a large degree of inconsistency. Juan Williams has served NPR with distinction for ten years. I rarely ever agree with an opinion that he has expressed, but he has done so in an articulate, kind manner. I think that the disparaging comments made by Schiller have exposed NPR to damages. I don't think they need another dime of our taxpayer money.

 

[DawnCt1]

How can you call Juan "bigoted"? He defended Muslims for the ENTIRE segment!
He spoke briefly about his feelings. Which many, many, Americans agree with him. Are all that agree with him bigots too?

ETA- Did you see the segment at all?

Evidently.

 

[ols386]

Then you must be disgusted with most Americans because his feelings reflect those of the majority of Americans. In fact, the WSJ this morning has commentary by a Muslim American who feels exactly the way Juan Williams feels. He was not suggesting that they should be treated differently. He was expressing his sense of anxiety under those circumstances.

Right. As do many other Americans.

Not on topic but I just wanted to mention I grew up with Juan Williams and had the worse mad crush on him as a kid.

He was VERY quiet and shy... and well, I'm NOT, so I just worshipped him from afar.

Too bad about the firing but hey, he got a good deal out of it, and a thread on the DIS. Not bad for a days work.

I'm jealous of you.

As stated earlier, NPR has a policy in regard to what their reporters can or can't do. He had been warned by his employer numerous times that his "commentary" on Fox was in violation in his employment contract. He was rightly terminated not for expression his own opinion, but for violating the terms of his employment contract. Please point to where in any Employment Law treatise where it states that NPR waived their right to fire him because "they tolerated it".



Do you realize that the WSJ is owned by the same corporation as Fox News? Not too biased...



Again, he got terminated not for expressing his opinion but for violating terms of his employment contract. Apples and oranges.

Then why didn't they fire him a long time ago?